June 2025

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Arta regarding the Annulment of the Seizure Report of Eleven (11) Horizontal Properties

A decision was recently published under number 139/2025 by the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Arta, which annulled the accelerated enforcement proceedings against our clients—natural persons.

Specifically, the court voided both the payment order and the attached seizure report pursuant to which eleven (11) horizontal properties belonging to our clients would have been auctioned. The auction had been initiated for alleged claims by a special-purpose vehicle (Servicer) against them, acting as guarantors for a construction corporation.

According to the court’s findings, the entity claiming to be the Servicer, in violation of the provisions of Article 925 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (“…the special successor of the creditor may not begin or continue enforcement until the order and the supporting documents have been served on the person against whom the enforcement is brought”), failed to serve along with the payment order all necessary documents proving both the transfer of the claim from the former creditor-bank to the Servicer and the formal assignment of its management.

Critical passages of the decision read verbatim as follows: “However, upon review of the challenged payment order and the documents referenced therein—and alleged to have been served on the respondents by the opposing party pursuant to Article 925(1) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure to prove its active standing to pursue enforcement—it is evident that Document No. 6 was not in fact served, despite being claimed to have been so. Specifically, this is the Athens Mortgage Office publication (Volume …, No. …), noting the amendment to the September 12, 2019 contract for sale and transfer of securitized business receivables …Moreover, to prove its managerial authority, the respondent cites and submits the management agreement dated … between the entitled party “…” and the respondent as manager, as summarized in the Athens Mortgage Office under protocol No. …, Volume …, No. …, as well as the supplemental management agreement dated November 24, 2022, also published in the Mortgage Office under protocol No. …, Volume …, No. 144. The initial management agreement of November 5, 2021 did not include an annex specifying the receivables under management …However, as it appears from the text of the supplemental management agreement (Protocol No. …), the annex to the transfer agreement it refers to (Protocol No. …) was amended three times, with associated filings under Article 10(8) of Law 3156/2003 … Yet none of these intermediary amendments to the sale and transfer agreement—including their annexes and the corresponding entries in the Mortgage Registry books, which the supplemental management agreement references—were submitted, nor were they referenced by the respondent in the challenged payment order.Therefore, not all legitimizing documents establishing that the respondent acquired authority to manage the disputed claim—and thus holds active standing to pursue the accelerated enforcement against the respondents—were duly served with the contested payment order.”