The Single member court of the first instance of Athens with the n. 6979/2015 decision, rejected the plea of the accelerating lender for reduction of the price of the first offer of the seized property due to the cancellation of two auctions, because of lack of highest bidders, accepting that the cancellations of the auction, is possible, that are not due to the disproportional prices of the first offer, related to the value of the seized properties. The prices are slightly higher than the fair values of the said properties and are attractive for possible interested bidders.
But in other circumstances, and on highly adverse financially circumstances that prevail in the Greek market and the attenuation that exists in the market of properties and due to the lack of liquidity which threatens generally the market ,the high taxation rates and the rest of surcharges of the proprietors, circumstances generally deterring for the future buyers and every investing interest, without possibility of knowing the time frame of the possible recovery of the market.
5851/2015 SINGLE MEMBER COURT OF ATHENS
Is not passively entitled during the enforcement proceedings, since the enforceable decision was issued v. another company, that is the company under the name…., which has been terminated and has been put into clearing and of which is no way the said, a total successor, but these are different legal persons.
The two companies have the same target that is, as it is depicted in their articles of association, they are two different legal persons, since there was neither case of conversion of a share company into a limited nor of merger.
The n. .. decision of the single member court of Athens, that is the enforceable title, has accepted that there was not, in essence, a variation of the employer, that is the defendant share company, which has continued being the employer company until the complaint of the employment relationship and is responsible in total for all the obligations that derive from the said contract until its complaint.
Consequently, the court deemed the share company liable, which is passively entitled to the enforcement proceedings, as liable to the enforceable title. From the clarity of the said decision it can not be interpretatively concluded that the court deems liable the applicant limited shares company. It most possibly will be liable according to the articles of underwriting of debt, according to the above legal thought.
To create the enlargement of the subjective boundaries of the enforceability (entitlement during the enforcement proceedings) the succession should have taken part during the trial or after its ending.
51231/2013 THREE MEMBER MISDEMEANOURS COURT OF ATHENS
However, the signature put in place of the issuer (the check) and under the name of the company […] did not prove that it was the defendant or that it was signed by a third party on the order and authorization of the defendant and even to cover the obligations of the employees in a third company […] ] which did not result in any transaction debt with the issuer of the check company.
This is not inferred from the overview of the defendant’s signature in the […] and […] petition he submitted to the Athens Public Prosecutor’s Office and the signature on the check in question. Moreover, the order in question, according to the deposition of the political plaintiff, was delivered by Mr […] to him, who was, as mentioned above, a manager of virtually both companies, with his legal representative on […]
Therefore, it was not shown that the accused intentionally issued the impugned check which was not paid to the bearer, but it was shown that it was issued without his knowledge by a third party and to cover the obligations of employees who were not employed by the company […] administrator while […] and not the defendant actually managed it.
3966/2015 SINGLE MEMBER COURT OF ATHENS
The One-Member Court of First Instance of Athens in Case no. 3966/2015 rejected its request to reduce the first bid price of the seized property, which was requested by the bank due to the cancellation of two auctions due to lack of bidders and accepted claims and objections raised by our office, finding that the aforementioned auctions adverse economic conditions prevailing on the market and not disproportionate to the value of the foreclosed property.
Adoption of the above decision in conjunction with a related decision by Mon. The Thessaloniki Court of First Instance is now consolidating important case-law on this crucial issue.
3383/2014 ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF APPEAL OF ATHENS
Because, in view of the provisions of Article 5 para. 2 of the CC, this Court is bound by the […] conviction of the Five-Member Court of Appeal of Athens, which became irrevocable in respect of the specific acts of issue of […] virtual invoices in the name of the applicant’s business during the use of […] , by […]
Consequently, since the applicant was merely a formal entity of the sole proprietorship, its business activity was advertising and had no real and meaningful relation to its operation, which it practiced exclusively […] and therefore , had no part in the disputed transactions in the issuance of the above […] virtual service invoices, unlawfully imposed by the contested decision on the fines for those infringements which, according to not to par. 4 of article 19 of l. 2523/1997, should be imposed at the expense of the actual controller, which was hidden.
27058/2014 SINGLE MEMBER MISDEMEANOURS COURT OF ATHENS
It extends the deadline for payment of the penalty imposed by […] Mon’s decision. Court of Appeals of Athens and the judgment of the same Court […] from 24 equal monthly installments to 36 equal monthly installments, effective 01-01-2015.
2158/2013 SINGLE MEMBER COURT OF ATHENS
The general condition of transactions, which provides that interest on a bank loan is calculated on the basis of a 360-day year, violates the general principle of transparency (AK 281, 288, article 2 of Law 2251/1994) governing banking contracts and dictates the conditions for are worded in a definite, correct and clear way so that the caring person is informed but having the average perception of a banking service user in the form of his / her legal decision to know the contractual obligations which he / she undertakes, in particular with regard to the relationship of consideration.
By calculating the interest rate in a 360 day year, the borrower is not informed of the (actual) annual interest rate, as this would have to be determined in accordance with the provision of Article 243 3 3 AK.
The bank breaks with this condition, completely artificial and in derogation of the borrower’s legitimate expectations, the period (year) to which the interest rate should be reported, thereby creating an additional burden on the borrower, who now – when the one-day interest rate is based on a 360-day year – charged at 1.3889% for each day more, interest, as the interest rate is subdivided to determine the interest rate of 360 days, without this additional burden being justified by invoking some complexity of the service provided or by some reasonable reason for the borrower or by a legitimate interest of the bank . This is particularly so in an age where electronic media offers, without any added difficulty, the precise calculation of interest at 365 days a year.
After all, the year of 365 days is in force today, in line with Community Directive 98/7 / EC, which was incorporated into our national law by JAS 21-178 / 13.TH2.2001 (Government Gazette B 255 / 08.03.2001 ) consumer credit, in the strict sense, a regulation showing the importance that the Community legislator attaches to the precise definition of the interest rate (see CA 430/2005 WEU 2005.460) … Orders the expert’s opinion to be submitted to the parties’ parties.
