Decision No. 11351/2024 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Regular Procedure) has been published, which rejected a lawsuit against our client who has been placed under partial judicial assistance due to gambling addiction. The lawsuit demanded payment to the opposing party - private individual of an (allegedly) owed amount from an interest-free loan agreement.
Specifically, our client was placing bets on credit at an OPAP agency owned by the opponent's daughter, even though this was explicitly prohibited by Article 32 par. 3 of Law 4002/2011. To avoid the relevant penalties imposed by law against the OPAP agency owner, a situation was created externally where the alleged creditor of our client was the agency owner's father (our opponent).
The Court accepted our client's objection regarding the fictitious nature of the loan agreement in question concerning the lender's identity, with the following reasoning: 'The contracting parties knew and wanted the loan agreement for the said amount to be valid for the plaintiff's daughter, as legal representative and partner of the above general partnership, to whom the defendants undertook the obligation to repay the above loan, and not for the plaintiff, who was superficially appearing as the person who granted the said loan. In this way, the debt that the first defendant had to the agency was secured, without revealing to third parties the identity of the actual lender, who could face disciplinary liability from OPAP.'
Finally, the court's judgment regarding the fictitious nature was further supported by the fact that no evidence was provided by the opponent proving the transfer of the allegedly owed amount from the plaintiff to our client (such as withdrawal or transfer from a bank account, copy of issued check), while the possession of a significant amount of cash by the plaintiff (and consequently its delivery to our client) could not be justified, given that the opponent was a pensioner.
Read all the court rulings