The payment order is issued for claims that are not, in principle, considered to be disputed. Consequently, the person against whom the Payment Order is issued must, within a period of 15 working days, dispute the claim incorporated in the order, before the competent Court. If he neglects to do so, the person who issued the Payment Order has the option of serving, that is to say notifying, the Payment Order again. If the alleged debtor is still not mobilized, then the demand embodied in the Order and the facts from which it derives cannot be disputed before the Greek Courts.

The issuance of the Payment Order essentially mobilizes a process that results in the definitive diagnosis (or not) of a claim but also provides the lender with the possibility of forced satisfaction. The forced satisfaction of a claim is, however, a separate, complex process during the operation of which it is possible for the creditor to make mistakes, which make it voidable. In any case, however, the law protects, with strict rules, also the justified inability to pay which is, however, accompanied by a bona fide effort to cooperate on the part of the debtor.

In the enforcement procedure, the creditor must follow certain steps in order to be able to satisfy his claim by auctioning a thing that belongs to the debtor or has been given as security by a third party on behalf of the debtor (e.g. real estate). First, he must issue a check for payment, with which he requests the payment of the amount owed by the debtor, and if he does not pay, proceed with seizure. The debtor, if he disagrees with the claim, or finds procedural errors in the enforcement procedure, can exercise the legal aid of opposing the a. 933 of the Civil Code within specific, short deadlines, provided by law. For this reason, in the event that a creditor turns against the debtor claiming the payment of what is owed, the latter must immediately seek legal help.

The law, and specifically the Code of Civil Procedure, provides in article 954, the possibility of filing an objection to correct the price of the first bid at which the seized thing (e.g. real estate) will be auctioned. The maximum deadline for the exercise of the specific remedy is 15 working days before the auction.

Despite the fact that the law provides for specific time limits for the issuance of decisions in such cases, due to the burden of the courts, there is a risk of an auction taking place without a Court decision on the objection against the seizure. Despite the fact that the law does not provide for the possibility of suspending the enforcement procedure at this stage, it is jurisprudentially accepted that the debtor, under conditions, may be deemed worthy of temporary judicial protection until a decision is issued on the opposition he has brought, based on provision of article 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the temporary regulation of the situation.

The law, in case a decision is issued on an objection against the seizure that does not justify the debtor, provides for the possibility of exercising remedies against the first court decision (e.g. appeal). However, the exercise of an appeal does not in itself suspend the progress of the enforcement procedure. For this reason, the law further provides for the possibility of exercising a suspension of execution, which, in order to be accepted, requires that a legal remedy (e.g. appeal) has been brought earlier. The Court called upon to decide should anticipate that at least one of the grounds raised will be accepted by the Court hearing the (future) appeal and that the debtor will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. In the event that a suspension of an auction is requested, the judicial remedy of the suspension must be exercised at least 5 working days before the auction in order to be examined by the Court, otherwise the relevant request will be rejected.

If there are errors in the auction process itself, or if an objection has been filed at an earlier point against a previous act of the enforcement procedure, the debtor can file an objection under article 933 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which he requests the cancellation of the auction that was carried out. In the case of execution for the satisfaction of monetary claims, the deadline for opposition to the auction is 30 days from the day of its implementation if it is movable, and 60 days after the summary of the appraisal report is transcribed if it is immovable. In case the debtor is vindicated, the thing (e.g. real estate) is considered to have never left his ownership.

In the event that the scheduled auction does not take place or is canceled for any reason, the lender may request that it be held within 40 days of the original date on which it was set to take place. If it becomes inactive, it can be resumed by making a Declaration of Resumption of Auction. In this case the auction cannot be carried out in a period of time earlier than 2 months and later than 3 months from the Declaration of Continuation. The debtor in any case, in accordance with article 973 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may file an objection in which he will raise objections for any reason concerning the validity of the Continuation Statement, which under conditions, may also concern the claim itself. This special legal aid must be exercised within a period of 30 days from the date of posting of the Statement of Continuation on the special page of the auctions of the Bulletin of Judicial Publications of the Electronic National Social Security Agency (e-EFKA).

The one who will emerge as the highest bidder in the auction process (that is, the one who will submit the best offer to acquire the thing), if he finds that the auctioned property does not have the qualities he thought he could withdraw, before paying the price. However, in the event that his decision is based on the existence of real defects in the property (e.g. the property appeared to be 100 sq.m., while it was actually 90 sq.m.), he cannot get back the money he had give as a guarantee, as these will be used to cover the difference between his bid and the bid of the next prospective bidder. If there was none, this money will be used to cover the costs of the re-auction process (new auction to identify a new bidder). However, in the event that the property is burdened by legal defects (e.g. the property is burdened by easements that do not disappear despite the auction process), the bidder can withdraw and claim the money of the guarantee that he had already paid to participate in the process of the auction.

In the event that a period of one year has passed from the imposition of the seizure to the date of the auction of his property, it is possible to file a request to overturn the seizure (1019 Civil Code) before the Magistrate’s Court in whose district the seized property is located. In this way, once the year has passed, the seizure is lifted.

Your lenders have the ability to seize your assets elements which are in the possession of a third party, in the hands of a third party. The most common “third party” is the Bank, since as a rule most persons have accounts where they deposit their savings. The Bank/third party within eight days from the receipt of the confiscation against you will assign any belongings to your account amounts, up to the amount of the seizure. Therefore, within eight days the debtor’s claim must be contested before the competent courts and seek to set aside the seizure.

Phone the bank to block bank accounts, Submit an Application contesting a transaction at the Bank, filing a lawsuit for fraud under article 386 of the Criminal Code at the police station of your area against anyone responsible and 7 request to the Bank to receive the details of the transferred accounts money.

Since when the suspicious transaction took place you were not notified by email or message to mobile number from the Bank for this transaction and you were not asked for the unique one transaction code, then the bank is responsible and you can turn against them with a lawsuit claiming your money.