July 2025

Decision of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki on the Abusive Exercise of Rights by a Credit Institution against a Textile Company in the Context of Non-Support of a Specific Investment Plan

The recent Decision No. 12493/2025 of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki (special procedure for property disputes) was issued. The Court upheld the objection (ανακοπή) filed by our clients — natural persons acting as guarantors — against a payment order issued by the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki for an amount of nearly €700,000. The enforceable title had been issued both against the principal debtor, a company operating in the textile industry, and the guarantors. According to the findings of the Court, both the termination of the loan agreement and the application for the issuance of the contested payment order were deemed abusive (καταχρηστικές). The Court, after a thorough assessment of the evidence, found that the creditor bank had, for several years, shown willingness to support the debtor company's restructuring plan through sustainable financing. This conduct created a legitimate expectation, both for the company and for the guarantors, that the creditor would not initiate debt collection procedures against them.  Furthermore, both the bank and, subsequently, the assignee/servicer of the claim requested a series of additional securities while simultaneously exhibiting systemic delays, inconsistencies, and unjustified withdrawals from previously agreed co-financing terms, even when: a) the debtor company had been included in a development-related legislative framework, b) a viable investment plan had been submitted and offers had been received from domestic and foreign investors, and c) other creditors with larger claims had demonstrated a cooperative stance. Therefore, the termination of the loan agreement and the application for the issuance of the payment order in 2023–2024 were not regarded as legitimate actions in the context of claim management, but as abusive and abrupt measures, because: a) they occurred without genuine prior negotiation, b) they disregarded the existing atmosphere of cooperation and expectation, and c) they aimed at the disproportionate and immediate satisfaction of the creditor’s interests, neglecting both the viability of the company and the financial ruin of the guarantors.

Key excerpts from the ruling include the following: “It is therefore established that both the termination of the disputed agreement and the application for the issuance of a payment order against the objecting parties were abusive, particularly considering the fact that, even from the time of termination (May 2023) until the issuance of the contested payment order (June 2024), prospective investors (...) had come forward. Nevertheless, the respondent showed no real interest in exploring these proposed investments, in line with its overall stance. The respondent, solely motivated by the immediacy of satisfying its interests, and ignoring both the extent of the harm caused — not only to the company but also to the guarantors, whose entire assets were pledged as personal and in rem security for the bank's claims, and to the realization of which it substantially contributed — and the possibility of satisfying its claim over a longer period with sufficient securities, proceeded to terminate the disputed agreement and to issue the contested enforceable title, without demonstrating any genuine willingness to engage in good-faith negotiations on a realistic basis.”