December 2025

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens on the Dismissal of a Claim Due to Invalid Termination of an Amortising Loan Agreement

A recent judgment, No. 13464/2025 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens, dismissed a claim brought against our clients—natural persons—regarding an alleged debt arising from a loan agreement with instalments of principal and interest.

More specifically, the Court held that the extrajudicial termination of the loan was invalid, as no power of attorney was produced—either at the time of the termination or during the subsequent hearing—demonstrating a specific mandate from the claimant to the lawyer who signed the termination notice. In the absence of such proof of authority, the termination was deemed invalid. Consequently, the alleged debt did not become due and payable and therefore could not be judicially pursued through an action. The documents submitted by the claimant merely evidenced the granting of authority to a designated internal officer for the general execution of loan-termination documents. However, no sub-authorisation from that authorised officer to the lawyer who ultimately signed the disputed termination notice was ever produced.

The Court’s key findings are as follows: “Thus, in the present case, it was not proven that the above extrajudicial termination–notice dated 16.9.2019 was signed by a lawful representative body of the claimant or by any third party duly authorised by such body, nor that it was subsequently, if at all, approved by the claimant’s representative body. Consequently, in accordance with the reasoning set out in the major premise of this judgment, Articles 233 and 238 of the Civil Code—which refer to the retroactive effect of subsequent approval by the competent organ of a legal person—are not applicable, because, due to the formative nature of termination, its completion requires a declaration of intent by the legal person itself, which can only be made through its representative organ. Therefore, the above loan termination was null and void and produced no legal effects, meaning that the contractual clause granting the lender the right to demand immediate payment was never triggered {…} and, as a result, the outstanding balance of the loan did not become due and payable.”