September 2026 – Final annulment of seizure order in the hands of banks as third parties against a commercial enterprise and individuals in the amount of €307,953

With the decision no. 4084/2026 of the Single-Member Court of Appeal of Athens the correctness of no. 1496/2024 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Property Disputes Procedure) was confirmed and our objection against a seizure order in the hands of banks as third parties of all the professional accounts of our client, a commercial company of cutting-edge medical devices, as well as the individuals-guarantors, members of the company’s Board of Directors (as well as of their relatives), was finally accepted.

With this decision, based on our presented and proven allegations, the abusive behavior of the plaintiff was recognized, which, although it could satisfy its alleged claim with alternative and milder means for the debtors (which were described in detail in our opposition and which included, in addition to significant real estate, a pledge on Greek State government bonds to cover the claims), chose to impose seizure on all of the professional bank accounts of our client company, but on all of the bank accounts of the individuals-guarantors, with the result that the continuation of the smooth operation and commercial activity of the company was put at risk.

More specifically, the above decision, after rejecting the opposing party’s objections concerning alleged legal defects in the first-instance decision, also rejected the opposing party’s second, fifth and third grounds of appeal, which concerned the alleged lack of abusive conduct on its part.

In more detail, the above decision acknowledged that while an electronic auction was in progress against the warehouses of our client company, the opposing party proceeded to seize bank accounts of our clients, whereby “In particular, with regard to the first defendant, accounts were frozen through which its daily business activity was carried out and served, among other things, the payment of salaries and insurance contributions of its employees, the payment of checks, suppliers and other operational obligations, as well as the collection of receivables from customers in the context of private and public contracts. The first respondent was active in the trade, repair and maintenance of medical machines and medical equipment and, therefore, the possibility of unhindered use of its bank accounts was directly linked to the continuation of its business operations…Furthermore, in order to secure the same claim, real security interests had been established on securities and in particular on government bonds of the Greek State…In parallel, the guarantors also owned other real estate…The disputed claim was indeed overdue and the respondents had not paid it for a long time. Also, the appellant had a legitimate and reasonable interest in seeking its compulsory satisfaction. Similarly, the existence of other creditors, the encumbrance of the real estate, the previous enforcement proceedings and the failure of settlement attempts are circumstances that justify, in principle, recourse to compulsory enforcement. These elements, however, do not remove the control of the specific manner of exercising the right in the light of Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code. The crucial issue is not whether the appellant was entitled to expedite enforcement, but whether the extent and intensity of the specific seizure were, under the specific circumstances, proportionate to the intended purpose. In this context, the appellant’s claim that the above-mentioned real estate was already encumbered and that its value was not sufficient for the full payment of the claim does not lead to a different assessment. This is because it was not proven that all the other assets were economically unsuitable for even partial satisfaction of the claim…The existence of encumbrances is therefore not sufficient to render the assets in question irrelevant when weighing up Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code, especially when some of these encumbrances were established in favor of the same claim. Moreover, for the application of Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code, it is not required to prove that a single alternative asset was sufficient for full repayment. It is sufficient that it appears that there was a real and not hypothetical possibility for the creditor to achieve significant, even partial, satisfaction from other assets, so that this fact can be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the chosen measure. In this case, in addition to the already seized properties of the first respondent, there were the pledged securities and several properties of the guarantors. This fact did not create a general obligation on the appellant to first exhaust all other means of enforcement, but it was a crucial factual element in the weighing. On the contrary, the disputed seizure in the hands of nine banks had a particularly strong impact on the first respondent, because it did not simply limit the disposal of certain saved funds, but affected the very system through which the company operated on a daily basis. The freezing of accounts was capable of significantly hindering the payment of salaries and social security contributions, the repayment of suppliers, the fulfillment of tax and other current obligations and the collection of receivables from customers. This consequence acquires additional weight in view of the fact that the first respondent continued to develop business activity and, according to the financial statements of 31.12.2022, showed an increase in its turnover due to its successful participation in public tenders. Under these circumstances, the disputed seizure was likely to affect not only the company’s existing assets but also the very mechanism for generating new revenue and, by extension, its ability to continue its business activity and service the disputed debt. The damage caused was not limited, therefore, to the usual adverse financial consequences that accompany any act of forced execution, but was capable of making it extremely difficult for the first respondent to continue operating…the appellant’s choice to impose cumulative seizure on nine banking institutions, essentially freezing all of the first respondent’s operating accounts, obviously exceeded the measure necessary to satisfy its claim…”.

Based on all the above assumptions, the analyzed decision considered the defendant’s conduct abusive and finally annulled the disputed seizure.

You can find more court decisions in related cases recently handled by our office, here, here, here and here.