Opposition against Seizure and Auction Proceedings in Greece | Complete FAQ Guide on Enforcement Actions under Greek Law

Electronic auctions in Greece take place through the HL.SY.PLEIS. (eauction.gr) platform. Accordingly, auctions of immovable property are conducted exclusively by electronic means (HL.SY.PLEIS.) before a Notary Public. After service of the writ of payment on the debtor, and once the three working days afforded to the debtor for voluntary compliance have elapsed, the creditor instructs a bailiff to proceed with the seizure. A seizure report is then drawn up in which the auction date is set. That date may not be scheduled earlier than 7 months or later than 8 months from the date of the seizure.
→ The auction procedure and the debtor’s defences (Greek)

Greek law provides the enforcement debtor with the remedy of opposition under Article 933 CCP, which may be used to challenge every individual act of compulsory enforcement (writ of payment, seizure report, auction and adjudication report, abstract of the adjudication report, etc.). The opposition to annul the seizure report must be filed within 45 days of service of the report on the debtor, while the opposition to annul an auction of immovable property must be filed within 60 days from registration of the abstract of the adjudication report in the land registry. A fundamental principle of enforcement procedure is the staged challenge of enforcement acts: the opposing party must contest each individual act within the statutory deadline, since failure to do so precludes the raising of the relevant grounds at a later stage.
→ The auction procedure and the debtor’s defences (Greek)

A seizure report is considered void in the following main circumstances: (a) Late publication of the abstract: if the abstract is not published in the judicial publications bulletin of the e-EFKA registry within 15 days of the seizure pursuant to Article 995 par. 4 CCP; (b) Insufficient description of the property: if the seized property is not described with sufficient clarity to allow identification. As held in EfDod 205/2019 and 211/2020, an insufficient description of the property, to such an extent that its identity cannot be determined, renders the seizure report void for indefiniteness. The report is also defective: (c) if the seizure was carried out without a prior enforcement order to a bailiff on the enforceable copy (apograph) pursuant to Article 927 CCP (see MPrAth 726/2018); (d) if the seizure report was not duly served on the debtor within the prescribed deadline; and (e) if the writ of payment is itself void, since its nullity affects the validity of all subsequent enforcement acts.
→ Nullity grounds of the seizure report and auction (Greek)

The abstract of the seizure report must be served on mortgage and prenotation creditors within 15 days of the seizure pursuant to Article 995 par. 4 CCP. In many cases, by the time of the seizure, the claim has already been transferred from the original creditor bank to a new special purpose vehicle (SPV). With the transfer of the claim, any mortgages or prenotations securing those receivables are also transferred as accessory rights. In practice, however, the service of the abstract is frequently made to the original creditor bank rather than the SPV — a defect that our office identifies during review of the auction file. The consequence of this omission is that the service is non-existent, resulting in the nullity of the auction. This defect falls within the challenge window applicable to the auction: it may therefore be raised within 60 days from registration of the abstract of the adjudication report at the competent Land Registry Office.
→ Nullity of auction due to non-service of abstract on SPV-creditor (Greek)

Beyond formal nullity grounds, the opposing party may ground its remedy on the abusiveness of the enforcement under Article 281 CC. The enforcement process is annulled where the exercise of the right conflicts with the principles of good faith and prevailing social morals. Enforcement has been found abusive in the following main categories: (a) the value of the seized property is grossly disproportionate to the claimed debt (see MPrAth 4242/2014: seizure of property worth €92,868 for a debt of €2,320); (b) enforcement is initiated while negotiations for an out-of-court settlement are ongoing (see EfAth 2604/2019); (c) enforcement is pursued by a creditor without a real legal interest, as it would receive only a negligible amount from the auction proceeds. In MPrAth 5095/2019 enforcement was held abusive where the enforcement title was obtained during negotiations for a consensual debt restructuring. The principle of good faith requires abstention from enforcement acts while the debtor is evidently acting with the intention of reaching a settlement.
→ Annulment of seizure on grounds of abusiveness (Greek)

Under Article 973 CCP, if for any reason an auction did not take place on the scheduled date, the creditor may by declaration reschedule it. The new auction date is set within two (2) months of the declaration and in any event no later than three (3) months thereafter. A continuation declaration may, however, be void on the ground that it constitutes an abusive enforcement act on the part of the creditor. In MPrAth 1042/2025, the court held the conduct of a loan servicer to be abusive and annulled the continuation declaration because, although an agreement had been reached for the payment of €700,000 to settle the debt, the creditor demanded payment within a mere five (5) months of signing the agreement. Opposition against a continuation declaration must be filed within thirty (30) days of the posting of the declaration in the court publications bulletin (Article 973 par. 6 CCP); no appeal or revocation application is available against the resulting judgment, making it irrevocable.
→ Abusiveness in the continuation declaration for a cancelled auction (Greek)

Article 1000 CCP provides for the judicial suspension of an immovable property auction for a period of up to six (6) months, subject to the condition of paying one quarter (1/4) of the capital for which enforcement is being pursued together with the costs of the enforcement proceedings. The conditions for granting the suspension are: (a) the creditor will not suffer harm from the postponement of the auction; and (b) it is expected that the debtor will satisfy the creditor within that period (e.g. through refinancing or a property sale), or a higher auction price is likely to be achieved after a brief postponement. The application must be filed at least 15 working days before the auction and is heard under the interim measures procedure. Suspension may be granted only once; the debtor must pay the 1/4 by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the auction. For example, in MPrAth 130/2024 and 131/2024, the court found it probable that the applicant would be able to repay the full debt within six months through refinancing efforts, and accordingly granted the suspension.
→ Judicial suspension of auction for up to six months (Art. 1000 CCP) (Greek)

The opposition to annul the auction of immovable property constitutes the “last resort” effort to save the debtor’s real estate. It is directed against the auction itself and the adjudication, and against the abstract of the adjudication report. The opposition must be filed within 60 days from registration of the abstract in the land registry; the pleading must also be entered in the claims register (vivlio diekdikiseon) of the competent Land Registry Office. Grounds include: (a) nullity of the seizure not raised at the earlier stage where this was impossible; (b) repayment of the debt after the seizure; (c) abusive or contradictory pre-auction conduct by the creditor; (d) pre-auction procedural defects (e.g. non-publication of the abstract in the judicial publications bulletin, non-service of the abstract on mortgage or prenotation creditors — AP 1655/2001, AP 936/2020); (e) defects in the conduct of the auction itself (OlAP 3/2007).
→ The last effort to save immovable property — opposition against the auction (Greek)

Article 18 of Law 4738/2020 provides that from the definitive submission of the application and until the process is concluded in any manner, the taking of enforcement measures and the continuation of enforcement proceedings against the debtor’s claims, movables and immovables are suspended. The suspension does not cover: an auction already scheduled within three (3) months from the definitive application submission date, nor any preparatory procedural act for an auction by a secured creditor (e.g. service of a writ of payment, imposition of a seizure). The automatic statutory protection must, however, be distinguished from court-granted protection, where each case is examined individually and a judicial suspension may still be ordered where necessary. MPrAth 7529/2022, in a case where the application had been definitively submitted and the procedure was still at the creditors’ evaluation stage, provisionally ordered the suspension of an immovable property auction until the completion of the procedure.
→ Suspension of enforcement upon submission of Out-of-Court Mechanism application (Greek)

The question was resolved by the ruling of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court (OlAP 1/2023): 56 judges voted in favour of servicers’ ability to conduct judicial acts and enforcement proceedings on claims transferred under Law 3156/2003, and 9 voted against. Debtors, however, retain all other available defences in the event enforcement proceedings are pursued by servicers.
→ Auctions: what changes and what does not after OlAP 1/2023 on Servicers (Greek)

Where the State or the e-EFKA proceeds with enforcement measures against a debtor, the debtor may seek annulment of the enforcement by filing an opposition under Article 65 par. 2 KEDC. Crucially, this opposition is not subject to any time limit. As regards third-party garnishments, under consistent case law a third-party garnishment notice is valid only if it contains a brief but clear reference to the legal relationship from which the third party’s debt to the enforcement debtor arises (see AP 884/2010, AP 259/2020); a total absence of any such reference renders the notice void for indefiniteness. An application for suspension under Article 65 par. 4 KEDC may be filed alongside the opposition; its grant requires neither imminent danger nor urgency, but merely a prima facie showing that the opposition is likely to succeed. It should be noted that where the State pursues enforcement measures to recover a tax debt, the Code of Tax Procedure (CTP) and the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP) apply, and the appropriate remedy is the opposition under Article 217 CAP.
→ KEDC opposition following vague third-party garnishment notice (Greek)

A debtor against whom enforcement proceedings have been initiated is entitled, once a final and irrevocable judgment has annulled the enforcement against them, to claim compensation for the loss suffered as a result of the enforcement, provided the conditions of Articles 914 or 919 of the Civil Code are also met (Article 940 par. 3 CCP). Critically, however, the Full Bench in OlAP 9/2010 held that an independent claim for damages arising from wrongful enforcement based on the general tort provisions is available even without a prior irrevocable annulment of the enforcement. The limitation period runs from the date on which the injured party became aware of the first damaging consequences of the act; the limitation period is five years.
→ Damages claim for wrongful enforcement (Art. 940 par. 3 CCP) (Greek)