Decision No. 3002/2025 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (summary proceedings) has been published, which suspended the enforcement measures against our client company, including third-party seizures in the hands of banks, based on a prima facie likelihood of success of the main legal remedy (objection to the seizure) for the following reason:
In the case at hand, the claim originated from an open mutual account agreement which was assigned to the special purpose vehicle before the account was closed and the claim became due by termination.
According to the court's reasoning, a mutual account agreement does not fall within the restrictions of Article 10(8) of Law 3156/2003. In other words, until the account is definitively closed, the credits and debits recorded in the account are non-assignable. This non-assignability constitutes an inherent characteristic of the mutual account agreement, without which such a contract would lose its legal meaning, given that its purpose is precisely to prevent the individual claims recorded in the account from becoming due. Only the final balance of the account becomes due upon its closure. Therefore, any assignment of the claim arising from such a mutual account, made prior to termination and closure, is invalid. As a result, the special purpose vehicle, acting through its servicing company (regulated by the Law on Debt Transfer and Securitization – Α.Ε.Δ.Α.Δ.Π.), is not entitled to request the issuance of a payment order or to initiate further enforcement proceedings.
As the court further held: “...In particular, Article 10(8) of Law 3156/2003, which should be interpreted narrowly due to its exceptional nature—as is also evident from its literal wording—must be construed in accordance with Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of the Greek Constitution and Article 361 of the Civil Code. It applies only to specific agreements between the creditor (assignor) and the debtor regarding the non-assignability of their mutual claims. Such a 'special agreement on non-assignability' is clearly not the mutual account agreement, as it serves a different purpose and has a different contractual nature, as outlined above. Therefore, Article 10(8) of Law 3156/2003 does not affect the validity of an existing mutual account agreement nor the non-assignability of the credits recorded therein, which constitutes a fundamental and inherent consequence of the mutual account agreement. Without this characteristic, the mutual account agreement would not exist and the principal contract serviced by such a mutual account would be fundamentally affected—even invalidated—without the consent of the other party to these contracts, namely the primary obligation agreement and the accessory mutual account agreement (cf. Areios Pagos 667/2010, NOMOS) […] With the first ground of the objection, the petitioners argue that the agreement to assign the disputed claim by the banking company under the name […] allegedly took place on […], i.e., at a time when the disputed mutual account agreement had not yet been terminated. Therefore, the foreign special purpose vehicle under the name […] never acquired the disputed claim, and as a consequence, the assignment of its management by the SPV to the respondent is null and void. The respondent, having undertaken the management of claims on behalf of a party without legal standing, had no right to request the issuance of the contested payment order. This ground is considered likely to be upheld…”
Read all the court rulings