October 2025

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens on the Annulment of a Property Seizure Report due to its Service at an Incorrect Address

The enforcement procedure suffered from a serious defect concerning the service of the seizure report to the debtor, as required by Article 995 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD). Specifically, the debt management company knowingly affixed (served) the seizure report on a property where our client had never resided—namely, the residence of his former spouse following the breakdown of their marital cohabitation.

Remarkably, this was the second enforcement attempt made by the same company against the same property. Once again, the seizure report was served to an incorrect address—different from our client’s actual residence. Two years earlier, an objection had been filed for the same issue, resulting in a favorable court decision for our client, which confirmed that the address of service was not the debtor's but his ex-wife’s, a fact already known to the enforcing party at that time. Despite that court decision—which has res judicata effect—the enforcing company again served the report at the same erroneous address (!).

As a result, our client was not timely informed about the seizure and only became aware of it a few days before the scheduled auction. By that time, the deadline for filing an objection against the seizure report—45 days from the date of seizure (as per Article 934 para. 1 KPolD)—had already expired.

Subsequently, the Court upheld the objection and annulled the seizure, ruling that the service was entirely arbitrary and invalid. It found that the debt management company knowingly served the report to an address that was not the debtor’s actual residence. Thus, such service was equated with a complete absence of the legally required service of the seizure report, rendering the seizure null and void, regardless of whether the debtor suffered any procedural harm.

Finally, it is worth noting that only 20 days had elapsed between our client being informed of the seizure and the scheduled auction. Within this extremely short period, the appropriate legal remedy was filed, the court hearing took place one day before the auction, and the court’s decision annulling the seizure was issued on the very morning of the auction—resulting in its cancellation shortly before it was due to begin.