PIRAEUS COURT OF PEACE
VOLUNTARY JURISDICTION DEPARTMENT
Decision number
352/2018
THE PIRAEUS JUSTICE COURT
Formed by the Justice of the Peace M. M. and the Secretary N. M.
He/She sat down. publicly in its hearing on May 8, 2018 to try the case between:
The applicant, resident of Keratsini, Piraeus, who appeared with his attorney-in-fact Alexandrou Angouria.
The defendant's application - participant in the trial: A Cypriot Public Limited Liability Company with the name "MARFIN POPULAR BANK PUBLIC CO LTD", based in Nicosia, Cyprus and has established a branch in Greece with the name "MARFIN EGNATIA BANK", based in Marousi, Attica, as the universal successor of the banking company with the name "MARFIN EGNATIA BANK S.A.", legally represented, which was not represented in Court.
And the main intervening party: a public limited company with the name "PIRAEUS BANK S.A.", headquartered in Athens, legally represented, which was represented by the attorney-at-law of K. P.
The applicant requests that his application be accepted, ...
The main intervening creditor denied the application, and in response, proposed: A) the objection of vagueness of the application, which is to be rejected, since the application contains the elements necessary under article 1 of Law 3869/2010 for the verification of its legal and substantive validity. Furthermore, the application is lawful, based on the provisions of articles 1,4,8,9 par.2 and 11 of Law 3869/2010, since based on the facts set out therein, the conditions for the applicant to be subject to the regulation of the law are met, since he is a natural person, lacking bankruptcy capacity, his debts are not included in the exemptions from the regulation and he has already fallen into a state of permanent inability to pay his overdue debts. B) the objection of the applicant's fraudulent entry into permanent inability to pay his debts, claiming in particular that the applicant proceeded to unreasonable and excessive borrowing even though he knew from the beginning of his inability to repay the loans, based on his financial capacity and never had the intention or ability to service his debts. This objection should be rejected as unfounded. This is because it has not been proven that the applicant, by any specific act or omission, sought the inability or foresaw that he would be led to it and did not change his behavior by accepting this result. In particular, the applicant's family income at the time of assuming the main volume of his debts was sufficient to service these debts and he could not have foreseen the rapid fall in his family income due to the unprecedented economic crisis. Furthermore, it did not emerge that the applicant took specific actions or omissions intentionally causing a decrease in the assets of his property and an increase in its liabilities. C) the objection of abusive exercise of the applicant's right, alleging in particular that the applicant requests to pay low monthly installments with the proposed debt settlement plan, in reality he requests complete exemption from his debts while at the same time there is no reduction in his living expenses. This objection is deemed to be rejected since the above-cited facts are presented vaguely and, even if assumed to be true, do not establish the objection under Article 281 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, there is no provision for judicial review of the content of the debt settlement plan and, consequently, no inadmissibility of the application. It is up to the creditors to accept or reject the plan, at which point the regulatory intervention of the Court follows, which investigates ex officio the debtor's assets as well as the ability to repay his debts based on his personal and family needs and determines the monthly amount to be paid without being bound by the debtor's proposal.
From the above-mentioned deposition of the applicant (the defendant in the application did not examine a witness), which was given before the hearing of this Court and is contained in the minutes of the same number as the present one, from all the legally submitted and invoked documents by the parties, and the general procedure, the following facts are proven: The applicant was born in 1965, is married and the father of an adult child. He worked as a private employee of a shipping company until 2008 when he was dismissed without receiving severance pay. He worked in the years 2009 and 2010, while from 9.07.2010 until 2017 he was unemployed. The applicant now works as an office worker and his monthly salary amounts to 504.00 euros (see salary note March 2018). The applicant's wife and his adult daughter are unemployed and have no income. Furthermore, the applicant's only asset which belongs to him in full ownership, possession and occupation in a percentage of 50% indivisible is a horizontal property-apartment of 72.00 sq.m., and year of construction 1995, located in Keratsini. The objective value of this house which is the main residence of the applicant and his family, amounts to 20,412 euros. In addition, the applicant jointly owed with his wife to the defendant in the application, the creditor (and now owes to the special successor of these claims, the creditor under the name "PIRAEUS BANK") the total amount of 150,493.26 euros from three loan agreements. The above debts, totaling 150,493 euros, are secured in deed by the registration of a mortgage note on the applicant's main residence. Taking into account all of the above and in particular the amount of the applicant's debts, in relation to his income, it follows that the applicant is unable to meet the service of these debts. The above negative liquidity relationship of the applicant and his debts during the current period is not expected to improve since his salary is not expected to increase, while at the same time his loan obligations are constantly increasing due to the burden of the loans with default interest. Consequently, in the case of the applicant there is a permanent and continuous inability to pay his overdue debts to the participating creditor to whom he came without fraud. In addition, it is considered that the exceptional circumstances of article 8 par. 5 of law 3869/2010 exist in the legal case. In accordance with the above and in application of article 8 par. 5 of law 3869/2010, the Court should directly set small monthly payments of one hundred euros per month (100) and for a period of five years, without specifying a redetermination of these payments because there is no prospect of immediate improvement in the applicant's financial situation. These payments will be made within the last three days of each month and will begin in the month of publication of this order. Furthermore, within the framework of the regulation of art. 9 par. 2 of law 3869/10, monthly payments should be set for the rescue of the applicant's main residence, which will amount to 80% of its objective value, i.e. the amount of 16,329 euros (20,412 x 80%).
FOR THESE REASONS
COMMITS in the absence of the defendant, the application and opposition of the parties, the application and main intervention of the banking company under the name "PIRAEUS BANK S.A."
ACCEPTED partly the main intervention.
REJECTED the application regarding the creditor "MARFIN POPULAR BANK PUBLIC CO LTD"
ACCEPTED partially the application regarding the banking company with the name "PIRAEUS BANK S.A."
REGULATES the applicant's debts with monthly payments of one hundred euros per month (100) and a duration of five years. These payments will be made within the last three days of each month, commencing in the month of publication of this.
EXCEPT the sale of the applicant's main residence.
ENFORCES to the applicant the obligation to pay to the creditor under the name "PIRAEUS BANK" for the rescue of his aforementioned residence, the total amount of 16,329 euros, with monthly payments of 68.00 euros per month for 240 months (20 years x 12 months). The payment of these monthly installments will begin on the 1st day of the 1st month five (05) years after the issuance of this decision and will be made without compound interest, at the average interest rate of a mortgage loan with a floating interest rate, which will be in effect at the time of repayment, according to the statistical bulletin of the Bank of Greece, adjusted with the reference interest rate of the Main Refinancing Operations of the European Central Bank.
JUDGED, was decided and published in an extraordinary public meeting in its auditorium in Piraeus.
THE SECRETARY OF THE JUSTICE
English 
Greek