May 2023 – Decision No. 87/2023 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Kalamata (Proceedings on Interim Measures), whereby the enforcement proceedings initiated by a payment order, issued by a Servicer (law 4354/2015) against our client were suspended.yiannatsis
By Decision No. 87/2023 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Kalamata (Proceedings on Interim Measures), the application of our client – the borrower – under Article 938 para. 1 of the Civil Procedural Code (CPC) was accepted, filed within the framework of a petition for annulment (pursuant to Articles 633 para. 2 and 933 of the CPC), and the suspension of the enforcement proceedings initiated by a payment order issued by the servicer (law 4354/2015) was ordered.
The Single-Member Court of First Instance of Kalamata has indicated the likelihood of success of our client’s relevant motion for annulment, which is based on the nullity of the payment order due to an abusive exercise of the right (under Article 281 of the Civil Code) by the Servicer, to pursue the collection of the alleged claim whilst the inclusion of our client in the out-of-court settlement procedures under Law No. 4738/2020, which had not been completed due to the fault of the managing company, was pending.
Specifically, it was ruled that our client is an “eligible debtor” (law 4738/2020) and that the opposing servicer initially submitted incorrect information to the platform of the out-of-court settlement regarding the amount of the debts. Subsequently, after our client obtained the correct information, the Servicer failed to submit the alleged debts to the platform within the statutory deadline of two months, necessitating the retrieval of the information once again. Furthermore, the aforementioned company both submitted incorrect information regarding the amount of the debts (different from what had been submitted in a previous retrial) and failed to respond to our client’s request for a statement of debts, so that our client could verify the accuracy of the debt information. As a result of the above, the initiation of enforcement proceedings was deemed abusive, as the process of including our client in the out-of-court settlement procedures was pending and did not proceed due to the fault of the managing company.
Thus, the Court, foreseeing the possibility of irreparable harm to our client from the continuation of the enforcement proceedings, as he was at risk of losing his only asset, which is also his primary residence, ordered the suspension of the enforcement proceedings initiated by the delivery of the above-mentioned payment order, without any conditions, until the issuance of a final decision on the motion for annulement filed by our client.