June 2023 – Decision No. 86/2023 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Syros (Special Procedure for Property Disputes), by which the seizure on a property in Paros owned by our principal was invalidated, and consequently, the property shall not be put up for auction, which was being expedited by a Servicer Company (Law 4354/2015).

With Decision No. 86/2023 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Syros, the seizure of the property in Paros owned by our principal was invalidated, and therefore, it will not be put up for auction.

The Court accepted that the right of the Servicer company to expedite enforcement proceedings through seizure and auction of the property is exercised abusively, according to Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code, due to a violation of the principle of proportionality.

Specifically, the Court acknowledged that the enforcement measures taken by the Servicer company have not been limited to what is necessary and are disproportionate to the amount awarded in the Payment Order, which is supposed to be covered by the remaining enforcement measures already undertaken. More specifically, the Court accepted that the Servicer company: a) has seized and scheduled auctions for three additional properties owned by the debtor company and the guarantors, on which it has a first-ranking mortgage prenotation or are unencumbered by other creditors; b) has imposed a garnishment on the bank accounts of the debtor company and the guarantors, freezing funds; and c) has expedited the forced sale of bonds owned by the company, on which it has even established a pledge, and the actual value of which constitutes a significant portion of the debt, thus exceeding the acceptable limits of debtor sacrifice.

The Court explicitly stated: “(…) while based on the enforceable title, the debtor company and the guarantors are required to pay the amount of 307,678.00€, the seizure was made for the amount of 50,000€ (…), enforced measures have been expedited against the debtors to collect an amount much larger than the one ordered in the aforementioned Payment Order of the Single-Member Court of Athens, and therefore, there is an evident disproportionality between the enforcement actions (…) and the amount awarded with the said payment order (…). As proved, the satisfaction of the claim of the creditor shall be feasible due to the imposition of the other enforcement measures already taken against the debtor company and the guarantors, while the seizure, apart from other assets, concerning the specific property, constitutes a measure of extreme harshness for the specific debtor, which exceeds the accepted limits of debtor sacrifice (…) thus highlighting the significant disproportionality between the means of execution and the purpose for which it is imposed (…), and consequently, it entails particularly burdensome consequences for the debtor.”