PROCEDURE
OF VOLUNTARY JURISDICTION
Number 8021/22-12-2011
THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THESSALONIKI
COMPOSED of Magistrate Aikaterini Iatridou, appointed by the President
of the Three-Member Council of Administration of the Magistrate’s Court, and Clerk Styliani Michailidou.
SAT publicly in its courtroom on 19 September 2011, to hear the
case between the parties:
APPLICANT: ................................ daughter of ............. and ............., resident of Thessaloniki,
street ..........................................., Kato Toumba, represented by her attorney-at-law
Anna Kivrakidou (Bar Reg. No.: 8815).
CREDITORS PARTICIPATING IN THE TRIAL,
who became parties after their lawful summons and appear as follows:
1. The Banking Société Anonyme under the name "............................", lawfully
represented, seated in Athens, street ................. no. ........, represented
by its attorney-at-law Paraskevi Gatsiou (Bar Reg. No.: 8314).
2. The Banking Société Anonyme under the name "......................................", lawfully
represented, seated in Athens, street ............ no. ........., represented by
its attorney-at-law Eleftherios Chatzopoulos (Bar Reg. No.: 991).
3. The Banking Société Anonyme under the name "............................................",
lawfully represented, seated in Athens, street ....... no. ........, represented
by its attorney-at-law Konstantia Panagiotidou (Bar Reg. No.: 8555).
THE APPLICANT requests that her application dated 21-02-2011 and bearing filing report
number 3835/16-3-2011, addressed to this Court, be accepted for all the
reasons invoked therein.
Upon the calling of the case from the relevant docket in its order and during
the hearing in court, the attorneys-at-law of the parties requested that all matters
set out in the minutes and in the pleadings they filed be accepted.
HAVING STUDIED THE CASE FILE
CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO LAW
WHEREAS main intervention under Article 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the procedural act by
which a third party participates in pending proceedings between third parties. A necessary condition, therefore,
for the lawful exercise of main intervention is that the intervening party has the status of a third party.
Moreover, main intervention under Article 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure is exercised like an action, by filing
a pleading with the Registry of the Court, addressed against both opposing parties.
More specifically, main intervention under Article 752 par. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in voluntary
jurisdiction means the voluntary participation of a third party with an independent claim, whereas in non-genuine
voluntary jurisdiction cases, namely when the procedure is conducted adversarially, main intervention by which
the intervening party seeks recognition of its own right is exercised by filing a pleading with the Registry of the
Court to which it is addressed, without requiring service thereof on the party against whom it is directed. In
voluntary jurisdiction, main intervention under Article 752 par. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even before the
Magistrate’s Court, cannot be exercised orally or through pleadings, but in any event requires the filing of an
independent pleading and observance of pre-trial procedure (see comments under Articles 81 & 752 CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, Charoula Apallagaki, p. 1520, and P. Arvanitakis in Kerameas/Kondylis/Nikas,
Interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure, p. 1494). Subsequently, whereas the judicial procedure for the
settlement of debts under Law 3869/2010 creates by definition an adversarial dispute between the applicant
debtor and his creditors, who disagreed during the first stage of out-of-court settlement. Therefore, the judicial
settlement of debts, initiated by the application under Article 4 § 1 of Law 3869/2010, constitutes a non-genuine
case of voluntary jurisdiction, namely a genuine private-law dispute which, for reasons of expediency, has been
subjected to the procedure of voluntary jurisdiction. The formative effect of the settlement by the Court occurs
as a consequence of an adversarial procedure caused by the non-performance of the obligations of the applicant-
debtor towards his creditors participating in the procedure. Despite the common terminological reference to the
subjects of the trial in contentious and voluntary jurisdiction, the term “parties” in the latter is interpreted in the
broader sense of persons formally participating in the procedure, including all persons interested in the decision
to be issued, provided that they became subjects of the trial formally, namely in one of the ways provided by law.
In this sense, “formal participants” in the procedure, and therefore subjects of voluntary jurisdiction proceedings,
are, in principle, the applicant, those summoned by order of the court under Article 748 § 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, those joined to the proceedings, and intervening parties, both main and additional, as well as the third-
party opponent. Intervening parties may be, as stated above, third persons who have not acquired the status of a
party in the proceedings. Apart, however, from these cases, where the status of a party is acquired through formal
participation in the proceedings, certain persons also become parties in voluntary jurisdiction directly by law, when
this is considered appropriate for the protection of their right to be heard or for the safeguarding of the public
interest. In such cases, reference is made to “parties by law”. The same is provided in Article 5 of Law 3869/2010
with the obligation to notify the application for settlement of debts within one month from its filing “to the
creditors” of the applicant, namely to those persons who participated in the mandatory preceding procedure of
out-of-court settlement. These creditors, in the case of Law 3869/2010, become parties by law, since the legislator
so requires. The identity of the creditors who must be summoned is specified by the list included in the application,
in accordance with Article 4 par. 1(b) of the law. Their above summons is mandatory. The summoned creditors
are provided not only with the right to be heard through their appearance in court, but also with the possibility of
prior submission of observations on the plan proposed by the debtor on the basis of a relevant invitation. In any
event, the omission to refer to the creditors in the application as respondents does not render it inadmissible,
because they have this specific status even if the applicant did not address the application against them. {see the
paper of Paris S. Arvanitakis, Professor of Law at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, “Voluntary jurisdiction as
the procedural framework of Law 3869/2010 for the settlement of debts of over-indebted natural persons”, training
seminar 29-30.9.2010 at the National School of Judges, and E. Kiouptsidou, Armen./64-Reprint, p. 1477}.
WHEREAS Law 3869/2010 aims to facilitate at least partial repayment of debts, which debtors would not be
able to achieve without the settlement, as well as to relieve them as far as possible from the constant pressure of
individual enforcement proceedings. However, the legislator’s aims do not include discharge from debts or their
balances when satisfaction is possible, or to the extent that satisfaction is possible, on the basis of the debtor’s
existing financial situation. The debtor is in every case obliged to service his debts both with income from his work
and with his property. The Court, if the required conditions for accepting the application are met, takes into account,
for the form of the settlement it will order, all the evidence submitted before it and must, on the basis of the provisions
of the law: a) proceed with settlement of monthly payments from the debtor’s income over a four-year period, so that
from this source there will be at least partial repayment of his debts, if he does not have sufficient assets; b) order
the sale of any existing liquidatable property of the debtor, appointing also a liquidator; and finally c) proceed with
further settlement of gradual payments by the debtor in order for a property used or capable of being used as his
main residence to be excluded from sale. The three aforementioned arrangements do not exclude one another and
often must be ordered cumulatively. (E. Kiouptsidou, Armen./64-Reprint, p. 1486). Therefore, the individual
settlement possibilities determined by law and the manner in which the Court will define them are interrelated, while
the decision may provide that this amount shall be readjusted at intervals specified therein on the basis of an objective
reference index. The debtor must work during the settlement period of the previous paragraph in suitable employment
or, if not working, make a reasonable effort to find corresponding employment. The effort to find employment is
presumed if the debtor is registered in the Register of Unemployed Persons of the Manpower Employment Organization
or has an unemployment card and has not unjustifiably refused a proposal from the Organization to take up work.
Whether refusal of a proposal is unjustified is assessed in view of all the above circumstances. He is also obliged to
notify the Registry of the Court within one month of any change of residence or employment, change of employer, as
well as any significant improvement in his income or assets, so that the file kept in accordance with paragraph 5 of
Article 4 may be updated. Suitable employment under paragraph 3 of Article 8 of Law 3869/2010 establishes, beyond
the obligation of payments, certain other obligations that the debtor must observe during the four-year period of
gradual payments. In particular, an obligation is established for him to work in suitable employment or, if not working,
to make a reasonable effort to find corresponding employment. “Suitable” employment must be understood as that
which corresponds to his abilities and capacities, as well as to all his qualifications, taking into account, however, the
objective conditions of the labor market and the adverse financial position in which he has found himself. Thus, it is
self-evident that the legislator does not have in mind the best possible job position that the debtor could obtain if he
had the possibility to wait for a long time or until the conditions determining the supply of work improved. No specific
sanction is provided for breach of this obligation by the debtor. However, non-compliance is taken into consideration
by the Court if an application for modification of the settlement is submitted either by the debtor, who requests a
reduction of the amount of payments due to failure to find work, or by his lenders, who request an increase of this
amount, claiming that the debtor is delaying in taking up work. Fraudulent or grossly negligent concealment of changes
in the debtor’s income or assets during the settlement may result in his forfeiture from it under the conditions of Article
10 par. 1. Subsequently, according to the provision of Article 8 par. 5 of Law 3869/2010, the occurrence in practice of
extreme or exceptional cases of debtors who have actual inability to make payments, even of a minimal amount, is not
excluded. This may indicatively occur in cases of long-term unemployment without fault of the debtor, serious health
problems of the debtor or another member of his family, insufficient income to cover basic living needs, or other reasons
of equivalent gravity. In such cases, the rule imposed by paragraph 2 is not observed, but the Court is permitted to
determine small monthly payments or even zero payments, according to the wording of the law (Article 8 par. 5),
provided that a relevant request is made by the debtor.
The Court, applying the above provision, sets by the same decision a new hearing date not less than five (5) months
after the previous one for redetermination of the monthly payments. At this new hearing, it either repeats its previous
decision or determines new payments upwards or downwards, if appropriate. The parties (debtors-creditors) are informed
of the new hearing date at their own initiative. That is, from the provision of §5 of Article 8 of the law it follows that
by determining zero payments by the Court, the issue of the debtor’s discharge from debts is not “finally” settled, but
the passage of up to four (4) years is awaited and it is checked whether, during this period, the debtor’s assets and any
income change, which would justify a new determination of payments (see Ath. Kritikos, Settlement of debts of over-
indebted natural persons, pp. 138-139). This postponement and the setting by the same decision of a new hearing date
ultimately gives the issued decision the character of a partially final decision, with temporary effect, since the final
decision will be the one that will ultimately decide on the final settlement of debts. Moreover, the Court, weighing the
conditions within the framework of the above provision of Article 8 par. 5 of Law 3869/2010, but also within the spirit
of the law, does not “finally” settle the issue of settlement of the debtor’s debts, but awaits the passage of up to four
(4) years and checks whether, during this period, the debtor’s assets and any income change, through finding “suitable”
employment that will give the debtor the possibility to save his first residence in the subsequent period, in accordance
with Article 9 par. 2 of Law 3869/2010, provided that such exists, and for the debtor to submit to the Court a liquidation
proposal requesting that this property, which serves as his main residence, be excluded from sale. In this way, creditors
are not unjustifiably deprived of an essential future collection result, contrary to the teleology of the law. This solution
is referred to by the provision of Article 9 par. 2, subparagraph c, first sub-subparagraph, of the law, which provides that
“the settlement (for the exclusion of the main residence) may also provide for a grace period”. Thus, the Court may
set a grace period of up to four years, so that the time periods of the two different categories of payments do not coincide,
in which case there will also be no incentive to calculate the four-year instalments at a level lower than that permitted
by the debtor’s existing income capacity. The reason why the legislator did not expressly separate the repayment periods
of these two different categories, but left this discretion to the judge through the grace period, is obviously that he did
not wish to exclude the possibility of the debtor seeking extraordinary sources independent of his own income (e.g.
financial assistance from relatives), so that the debtor could begin, already from the first four-year period, the effort to
save his main residence. This means that a debtor who has real estate presence cannot be definitively discharged from
his debts with zero payments. On the contrary, only if it is proven in the future that there are no negative impediments
whatsoever, the exclusion from sale may occur as favorable treatment of the debtor, which the law desires. No specific
sanction is provided for any breach of this obligation of the debtor, which mainly concerns his duty to find employment.
If, however, he delays in taking up work or fraudulently or by gross negligence conceals future changes in his income
or assets, favorable treatment of the debtor will not occur. Over-indebted citizens who have fallen, without fraud, into
proven permanent inability to service their debts may now regulate, based on their real capabilities, repayment of part
of their debts. The debtor who enters this procedure must additionally accept the liquidation of his property, but may
exclude from liquidation, under conditions, his main residence, undertaking repayment of an additional part of his debts
amounting up to 85% of the commercial value of the property. It therefore becomes clear that the possibility provided
by Article 9 par. 2 to save the debtor’s main residence does not reduce the latter’s repayment obligations nor deprive
his creditors of any essential result, since in substance “the debtor is obliged to buy out the exclusion”, paying in
interest-bearing instalments an amount not far from the collection result usually expected from a forced sale. The
favor towards the debtor is limited here to treating him as if he had taken a loan on favorable (but not unusual) terms
as to the instalments and the duration of repayment. From the above one must conclude that, by the provisions of Article
9 par. 2 of Law 3869/2010, the legislator continues the search for delicate balances between the conflicting interests
of creditors and the debtor and that this is not an extremely favorable arrangement in favor of the debtor disturbing
the teleology of the entire legislation (see the study by G. Delios, Associate Professor of the Law School of Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, published in ChrDik 3/2010, p. 298).
WHEREAS by the pleading under consideration, the applicant, invoking lack of bankruptcy capacity and permanent
inability to pay her overdue monetary debts to her creditor banks, which are referred to in the detailed list included in
the application, as clearly follows from the entire content of the application and according to the reasonable assessment
of her pleading, requests the settlement of her debts by the Court, with the exclusion of her main residence, according
to the settlement plan she submits and after taking into account her financial and family situation, with the purpose of
her discharge from them, also requesting her inclusion in the exceptional case of paragraph 5 of Article 8 of Law
3869/2010, with zero payments and suspension of her payments until she finds work in the future.
WHEREAS this application is competently and admissibly brought before this Court of the district of the applicant’s
residence under the procedure of voluntary jurisdiction (Article 3 of Law 3869/2010). As to its admissibility, a) the
pre-trial procedure of out-of-court settlement was observed through the mediation of a person among those vested
with relevant authority by law (see Article 2 of Law 3869/2010), which failed, as appears from the certificate of failure
of out-of-court settlement lawfully produced on 18-4-2011, under Article 4 par. 2(a) of Law 3869/2010, issued by the
mediator and attorney of the applicant, ............. (Bar Reg. No.: 8815), b) the application was filed on 16-03-2011,
namely within the six-month deadline of Article 2 par. 1 of Law 3869/2010 from the failure of the out-of-court settlement,
since the date of 24-02-2011 mentioned in the above certificate of failure of judicial settlement is obviously the date of
drafting of this certificate, while no creditor disputed that the attempt at out-of-court settlement had failed (see also
Athens Magistrate’s Court 15/2011, produced & published in NOMOS), and finally c) no other application by the applicant
for settlement of her debts is pending before this Court or another Magistrate’s Court of the country, nor has any previous
application of hers been rejected on substantive grounds, as was ascertained after an ex officio check under Article 13
par. 2 (see relevant certificates of the Clerks of this Court and of the Athens Magistrate’s Court). The application under
consideration, which also includes the elements of Article 4 par. 1 of Law 3869/2010, is specific, the relevant allegation
of her creditors being rejected, since the pleading includes all elements required by law (Article 4 par. 1 of Law 3869/2010),
namely: 1) permanent inability to pay the overdue debts of the applicant as a natural person without bankruptcy status,
2) statement of her assets, 3) statement of her creditors and their claims by principal, interest and expenses, 3) debt
settlement plan, even with zero payments, elements included therein (Kritikos, settlement under Law 3889/2010, p. 64,
and E. Kiouptsidou, Armen./64-Reprint, p. 1477, additionally see Thessaloniki Magistrate’s Court 5105/05-08-2011 &
Larissa Magistrate’s Court 106/2011, ex officio), and no other element is required for the completeness of the specificity
of said application.
WHEREAS the application is admissibly introduced for hearing after the timely and lawful summons of the participating
creditors under Article 5 par. 1 of Law 3869/2010 (as appears from the produced service reports no. 15357/23-3-2011,
15358/23-3-2011 and 15359/23-3-2011 of the bailiff at the Court of First Instance of Athens, Eirini Gouma-Krina). The
second respondent-creditor participating in the trial, the Banking Société Anonyme under the name
".........................................", lawfully represented, exercised main intervention through her pleadings. According to what
is set out in the legal reasoning of the first paragraph in the introduction, this intervention must be rejected as procedurally
non-existent and inadmissible, since in voluntary jurisdiction main intervention under Article 752 par. 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, even before the Magistrate’s Court, cannot be exercised orally or through pleadings, but in any case
requires the filing of an independent pleading and observance of pre-trial procedure. Since this party did not exercise
its right by filing an independent pleading with the Registry of the competent Court, so that procedural existence would
be acquired by the right exercised, its main intervention is procedurally non-existent. Moreover, even if the intervention
exercised through the pleadings is characterized by the Court, upon assessment, as an “additional intervention”, the
above intervening second respondent-creditor Banking Société Anonyme, falling into the category of parties by law
(Article 5 par. 1 of Law 3869/2010), became a party solely by its lawful and timely summons under Article 748 par. 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thus has acquired the status of party in this trial of a genuine voluntary jurisdiction
case. Therefore, according also to what is set out by way of introduction in the legal reasoning of the first paragraph,
the intervention in this case too must be rejected due to procedural inadmissibility, since the second respondent-creditor
Banking Société Anonyme is not a third party. Furthermore, the application is lawful, based on the provisions of Articles
1, 4, 5, 6 par. 3, 8 and 9 of Law 3869/2010, as amended by Article 85 of Law 3996/2011 and Article 20 of Law 4019/2011,
and must be examined below as to its substantive merits, since no judicial settlement was achieved between the applicant
and her creditors, given that her debt settlement plan has not been accepted by the majority of them, and it must be
further examined as to its substantive merits, while the objections and allegations submitted by all respondents, which
concern the substantive part of the case, will be jointly examined as to their merits below together with the other factual
circumstances.
WHEREAS from the assessment of the sworn testimony of the witness of proof (daughter of the applicant), who was
examined in the Court’s hearing and whose testimony is included in the minutes of the hearing bearing the same number
as the present decision, the documents lawfully and admissibly produced and invoked by the applicant and by the
appearing respondent Banks, the admissions inferred from the allegations of the parties (Article 261 of the Code of Civil
Procedure), and the lessons of common experience taken into account ex officio by the Court (Article 336 §4 of the Code
of Civil Procedure), in conjunction also with the ex officio investigation of the facts (Article 744 of the Code of Civil
Procedure) and the oral proceedings in court, the following factual circumstances were proven for this case:
WHEREAS the applicant ........................ daughter of .................... and ......................, resident of Thessaloniki, born
in Thessaloniki in the year 1960, is divorced without receiving any kind of maintenance and has two adult and married
children. She lives alone in the apartment located on .................................. street, which is her only asset. She lacks
bankruptcy capacity, since she has no commercial status, and has fallen, without fault of her own, into permanent inability
to pay her overdue debts due to over-indebtedness, since she has been unemployed since March 2010. Her adult children,
due to their own financial difficulties, currently do not have the ability to assist her financially except to a minimal extent,
namely by providing her approximately 100 euros each per month, in order to cover her absolutely basic expenses. As
proven, the applicant worked as a medium until 8/3/2010, when she discontinued her work with the Professional Chamber
of Thessaloniki, which deleted her on 17/3/2010. Since then she has been unemployed, she also has an unemployment
card from O.A.E.D. with registration date 11-05-2010 (see O.A.E.D. unemployment card with last validation on 10/1/2011
and next on 10/5/2011), and she does not receive any benefit because she comes from the sector of self-employed
professionals. Therefore, today the applicant has no personal income and remains unemployed, also due to the fact that
finding work is difficult because of the adverse financial situation of the country during the current period, which also
affects employment, and additionally because her age and sex (she is today 51 years old) limit her possibilities of finding
work, since statistics on unemployment rates among women in the city of Thessaloniki are among the highest. The
profession of medium, which she exercised until 8/3/2010, she abandoned because, according to her allegations but also
according to the lessons of common experience (taken into account ex officio by the Court), it is no longer possible for
it to bring her income, since the services provided thereby do not concern the satisfaction of basic living needs of an
average citizen but concern the resolution of problems of a specialized public. However, during the financial crisis it is
certain that this public too will take care to satisfy first its immediate living needs, and it is doubtful whether money remains
for it to resort to the advisory services of a Medium.
As appears, moreover, from the tax clearance notes of the Fifth Tax Office of Thessaloniki for the financial years
2007 to 2009 (declaration numbers 9614, 1882 and 14419), her income from commercial enterprises was minimal and
the continuation by her of the exercise of the liberal profession of “MEDIUM” was unprofitable. These minimal incomes
do not continue to exist today, after the discontinuation of her activities at the Fifth Tax Office of Thessaloniki (see relevant
Certificate of discontinuation of activities of a natural person professional of the Fifth Tax Office of Thessaloniki, the
certificate of deletion from the Professional Chamber of Thessaloniki dated 16/3/2010, with declaration no. 107, and the
decision of deletion from the registers of O.A.E.E. dated 17/3/2010, with protocol no. 347580). The monetary debts to
be settled were proven not to have been assumed during the last year before the submission of the application under
consideration, while with her small incomes and probably also with the help of her children (the economic circumstances
were more favorable then), she was then normally servicing her loan obligations, which were approximately 500 euros
per month (in total loan instalments and interest), until the beginning of 2010. Since then she has been in constant search
of work, of any kind, in order to support herself and repay her creditors.
WHEREAS the estimated minimum monthly cost of living of the applicant, who lives alone in her privately owned apartment
on .......................................... street, must, according to the reasonable assessment of the Court and the lessons of common
experience, in order for her to have a dignified life in Greece, amount today to approximately 570 euros monthly for food,
clothing, as well as heating, D.E.I., water, etc., an amount that is certainly below the official European poverty threshold
and approximately two thirds of the minimum annual earnings provided by the National General Collective Labor Agreement
(specifically, the amount of 6,900 euros). As proven, the applicant does not even have this amount, and her living conditions
are at levels far below the amount deemed necessary for the present living situation in Greece, while she is unable to have
a normal life in which even her basic needs would be covered. The extreme financial need in which the applicant found
herself during the last 18 months is also proven by the fact that on 12-8-2010 she sold jewelry worth 565.66 euros in order
to meet her needs (see produced and invoked invoice no. 1077/12-8-2010 of the pawnshop “....................................”).
Also, the fact of the applicant’s very poor financial situation follows from the fact that business in her work showed a
significant decline and it was very difficult for her to pay her contributions to TEVE, where she was insured, and her debt
on 19/4/2010 reached the amount of 5,648.88 euros, a debt which continues to exist and must be repaid, but which is
excluded from the settlements of the applicable law.
Moreover, it was not proven that the applicant has any other asset in her name, apart from her privately owned main
residence, namely that she is not the owner of other real estate and has no movable property such as deposits, vehicles,
shares, dividends and other valuable movable assets, and she lives exclusively with the help of her adult children. From
the above arises her current permanent inability to meet all her debts towards her creditors, and the conditions for inclusion
of the applicant in the settlement of the law are met, since she is a natural person lacking bankruptcy capacity and has
already fallen without fault into a state of permanent inability to pay her overdue debts, and all contrary allegations of the
respondents-creditors must be rejected.
WHEREAS the applicant’s debts to her lenders - (respondent Banks) burdened her with high interest rates, since they
are credit cards and consumer loans, which, combined with the reduction of her income, further worsened her financial
situation and ultimately made it impossible to service her debts, as a result of which she fell without fraud into permanent
inability to pay her overdue debts.
WHEREAS it was subsequently proven that the applicant’s total debts currently amount, according to the relevant certificates
of the credit institutions under the names ".............................", to the total amount of 18,228.62 euros, and specifically:
a) to the first Bank under the name "......................" she owes in total the amount of 13,042.98 euros, according to the
information dated 23-12-2010 provided to her by the same, and this debt arises from the following contracts: 1) the consumer
loan agreement no. ......................, in which she is liable as debtor and her debt amounts to the total amount of 3,880.91 €,
2) the credit card agreement no. ........................., in which she is liable as debtor and her debt amounts to the total amount
of 4,566.44 €, and 3) the credit card agreement no. ................., in which she is liable as debtor and her debt amounts to
the amount of 4,595.63 €, b) to the second respondent Bank under the name ".....................", she owes in total the amount
of 2,523.54 euros, according to the information dated 22/12/2010 provided to her by the same, which arises 1) from the
credit card agreement no. ........................, in which she is liable as debtor and her debt amounts to the total amount of
1,307.18 €, and 2) from the credit card agreement no. ...................., in which she is liable as debtor and her debt amounts
to the total amount of 1,216.36 €, while the amount of the applicant’s debts to the Bank currently amounts to the amount
of 2,651.56 euros, an amount that arose lawfully (in accordance with Article 6 par. 2 of Law 3869/2010) from the accrual
of interest until 23.03.2011 (date of service of the application on our Bank) on the applicant’s debts from the above two
(2) credit cards, c) to the third Bank under the name “....................... COMPANY”, she owes in total the amount of 2,662.10
euros, according to the debt information dated 22/12/2010 provided to her by the same, which arises from loan agreement
no. ................................., in which she is liable as debtor and her debt amounts to the total amount of 2,662.10 euros.
The above loans were terminated and the unpaid amounts were transferred to final delay as overdue.
According to all that has been set out in detail above, the applicant’s total debts to the banks amount in total to 18,228.62
euros (13,042.98 + 2,523.54 + 2,662.10 = 18,228.62€), with the consequence that the monthly instalments she owes to
the above credit institutions amount to approximately 450.00 euros per month.
Moreover, given the applicant’s present dire situation - since as an unemployed person she is currently unable to have a
normal life in which basic living needs are covered - but also her request to pay in the future a reasonable monthly amount
for the rescue of her first residence, based on what was stated above in the second paragraph of the introductory legal
reasoning, the conditions are met in the applicant’s person for her inclusion in the settlement of the law under Article 8
par. 5 of Law 3869/2010, since it was proven that the exceptional nature of the case exists, as today she has actual inability
to make payments even of a minimal amount, due to insufficient income to cover her basic living needs.
WHEREAS during the ensuing period of the coming months it is not possible for the Court to determine whether the
applicant will find some work (even part-time employment) in order to support herself, taking into account also the fact
of the imminent further deterioration of economic conditions and employment in the private sector in the near future, due
to the lack of purchasing power of Greek citizens. The applicant’s immediate financial future is predicted to be particularly
difficult, also due to her already minimal financial possibilities, in relation to the lessons of common experience, since today
she enjoys the help of her relatives in order to survive, as is also presumed from the testimony of the witness of proof.
Moreover, it was fully proven that the applicant, at a time earlier than one year before the filing of the application at
issue, had assumed the following debts, for which there is no real security and which are deemed, by legal fiction, according
to Article 6 par. 3 of Law 3869/10, overdue upon service of the application, and are calculated at their current value at that
time (see Kritikos, “Settlement of debts of over-indebted natural persons”, p. 99), while the Court takes into account the
information provided by the respondents themselves to the applicant on 22 and 23/12/2010, since they failed to inform
the Court of the balance of interest due until 23-3-2011, the day of service of the application, although they were invited
to do so.
WHEREAS according to the foregoing and because the above financial situation of the applicant is considered temporary,
since it is not possible to determine the time for which she will remain in the same financial situation, the Court must, for
this reason, determining by the present decision zero monthly payments to the respondent, postpone the issuance of a
decision and set a new hearing date, not earlier than eleven (11) months, for redetermination of her monthly payments,
considering that within this period until the new hearing date to be set in the operative part of the present decision, her
financial situation will have changed.
According to the provisions of Article 8 par. 5 of Law 3869/2010, but also according to what was set out in the introductory
legal reasoning (in the second paragraph), she must, through her own care, find by the date set in the operative part, work
that will give her the right to live with dignity and proceed with further settlement of gradual payments, in order for the
property serving as her main residence to be excluded from sale, the value of which is indeed approximately three times
her total debt, since she states as the commercial value of her property the amount of 80,000.00€ and it is an apartment
on the first floor of a building, with a gross area of 68.11 sq.m., with co-ownership share in the plot and common areas of
the building of 92/1000 undivided, located in the Municipality of Thessaloniki, on ................. street in the Kato Toumba
area, which the applicant owns in full ownership.
WHEREAS the Court considers that it must not “finally” settle the issue of the discharge of the debtor-applicant from
her debts, but awaits the passage of eleven (11) months in order to check whether during this period her assets and any
income will change and whether her financial situation will significantly improve, which would justify a new determination
of her payments to her creditors, since in essence the debtor will in the future be obliged “to buy out the exclusion of
her first residence”.
Following the above, according to the above reasoning, the application under consideration must be accepted in part as
well-founded in substance and the applicant’s debts must be settled, with the temporary suspension of payments of her debts
to the respondent-creditor banking companies, otherwise with their temporary settlement with zero payments, according also
to the applicant’s settlement plan and her request for exclusion of her first residence, as follows in the operative part.
Legal costs are not awarded, pursuant to Article 8 par. 6 of Law 3869/2010.
FOR THESE REASONS
TRIES the case in the presence of the parties.
ACCEPTS the application in part.
SETTLES the applicant’s debts, determining zero monthly payments.
SETS a new hearing date for redetermination of the applicant’s monthly payments, on
12 November 2012, at 11 a.m. and in courtroom 71 of the Magistrate’s Court of
Thessaloniki, where the Court sits.
DECIDED, resolved and published in an extraordinary and public session in the
courtroom of the Court, in Thessaloniki on 22 December 2011, without the presence of
the parties and their attorneys-at-law.
THE MAGISTRATE THE CLERK
| |
“`