"Stop" in foreclosures bank accounts without the knowledge of the debt

The state cannot foreclose money from bank accounts for debt, if they have not previously informed the debtor, in order to exercise the planned legal action in the courts or to repay or settle the debt, decided the five members of the F Department of the State Council, reiterating earlier decision.

Newsbomb

ENGLISH NEWS
3'

However, given the importance of the issue was referred to a new judgment in the increased synthesis of 7-membered same Department and the case will be heard on May 5, 2014, with rapporteur Dimitrios Tomaras.

The State Council stated, that Article 30 of the State Revenue Code (Legislative Decree 356/1974), which say that "a garnishee debtor to a third party does not require the notification of confiscating document to the debtor."

Then the judges stressed that "this provision is invalid because it objects in the provision of Article 20 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, because this omission leads the debtor to not take note or take note too late the against him enforcement of seizure, so he cannot effectively defend himself before the completion of the enforcement proceedings by taking appropriate measures either to cancel or to suspend enforcement of the act".

The case which was judged by the Council of State

Specifically, the CoS discussed about the case of a managing director of a SA which does not exist today. At the expense of the CEO, the head of tax office F.A.V.E. Athens had send a report of forced seizure. The seizure related to requirements of IKA for debts of former SA amounting to EUR 565,392.73. The seizure was made to the pension of the former CEO, of an amount 17.683 Euros.
The CEO was informed the fact of the seizure of the disputed amount from his bank account after nine months, randomly when he went to the bank to make a withdrawal.



Following these, the CEO appealed against the seizure report.

The Administrative Court and Court of Appeals vindicated the Executive Director. These two courts interpreting “the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 1 of KEDE in the light of Article 20 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, accepted, report that the forced seizure at a third party and against the debtor of the state must also be noted to the respondent of the execution, in order to enable it to turn with the legal remedies provided by law against the act in question, seeking the annulment or the reform of this or to make a debt arrangement and that any failure to communicate leads to annulment of the seizure, as long as the debtor plead the untimely aware of the contents of this and annulled the above report forced seizure”.

The State appealed to the appellate decision which vindicated the CEO, but the F Section CoS held that the Court of Appeal decision is lawful and referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the same Department for evaluating again.