The following is Decision No. 5469/2018 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, which, in part accepting the objection filed against the payment order, ruled that the amount owed by the objectors had been illegally inflated due to the accumulation of illegal charges made by the bank throughout all previous years and which were taken into account for the calculation. of their debt during the process of closing the account, terminating the contract and issuing the payment order.
Specifically, it held that the The existence of a general transaction term of the credit agreement does not make all charges lawful without exception, namely those in accordance with the content of Law No. 2501/2002 of the Hellenic Bank Act, and on the other hand, it has not been proven that in the case at hand all the actions listed as justification for the charges were actually carried out, so that they are justified. The charges with the justification of account opening expenses, legalization expenses and transfer of expenses in arrears have no legal basis, because the information of the objectors about the balance of their debt was made by the bank itself, that is, by its competent employees and not by third parties collaborating with it, so as to justify the periodic charge of the amount of 50.00 or 100.00 euros or 270.00 euros as remuneration for the provision of a special service or as an expense in favor of a third party. The charges with the justifications of calendar expense charge - P.O. approval costs, quarterly costs, file evaluation costs, insurance policy costs, also have no legal basis, because the above actions were carried out by the relevant employees of the defendant bank and not by third parties collaborating with it, so that these charges could be justified as remuneration for the provision of a special service or as an expense in favor of a third party. The above charges do not fall under the exceptions established in Chapter F of 2501/2002 of the Greek Bank Act, because they are neither fees for the organization and management of syndicated loans nor for inactivity fees on the undrawn amounts of the credit granted to the first objector. Similarly, they are not fees for special services provided, nor for one-off expenses or expenses in favor of a third party. The illegal nature of these charges was established regardless of whether the aforementioned general terms and conditions of the credit agreement, under which credit was granted with an open mutual account, allowed the collection of the above amounts of money.
The following is the text of the Decision (edited only to delete the names of the parties, published in the Legal Information Bank LAW):
Decision number: 5469/2018
THE SINGLE-MEMBER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THESSALONIKI WAS ESTABLISHED by Judge Maria Zachariadou, President of the Courts of First Instance, appointed by the President of the Three-Member Administrative Council of the Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, and by Secretary Melpomeni Tsiridou. MEETING publicly in its hearing on 06.11.2017, to judge the objection with filing report number 31412/25.10.2012 regarding the cancellation of a payment order and a check for execution, between: THE OPPOSITIONERS: 1) the société anonyme with the name "....... " and the distinctive title "......", which is based in the Municipality of .... Thessaloniki (on .... street) and is legally represented and 2) ..... of ...., resident of .... Thessaloniki, street ...., no. ..., who were represented in court by their attorney Thomas Kalokyris (Veria Board of Directors' Registration Number 591), who filed proposals with the no. .../06.11.2017 advance payment of contributions and stamps of the Thessaloniki Bar Association. OF THE REPRESENTATIVE: An anonymous banking company with the name "......" and the distinctive title "....." (formerly Bank ......), headquartered in Athens, street ...., no. ... and legally represented, which was represented in court by its attorney-in-fact Asimina Kyridi (A.M. D.S.Th. 4506), who filed proposals with the no. .../22.10.2014 collection note of the Thessaloniki Bar Association. DURING THE DISCUSSION of the case, which was set for the above-mentioned hearing after two adjournments and after its reading from the order of the relevant table, the parties appeared as stated above and their attorneys requested that what is stated in the minutes and in their written proposals be accepted. STUDY THE DOCUMENT DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW With their objection under consideration, the objectors state that by virtue of the contract referred to in the objection document, namely the credit agreement with an open (joint) account dated 22.07.2003, which they concluded with the defendant, either the 1st as the primary debtor or the 2nd as the guarantor, the defendant in the objection succeeded in obtaining the issuance of the no. 23158/2012 payment order of a Judge of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki (as corrected by the 23484/2012 corrective decision), by which they are ordered to pay her the sum of 23,565.31 euros plus interest and costs as specifically set out in the petition. For the reasons stated in their objection petition, they request that the above payment order and the following check for execution from 01.10.2012 be annulled. With this content and request, the objection is admissibly submitted for discussion before the competent Court in terms of substance and location (articles 14 par. 2, 584 and 632 par. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure) in accordance with the regular procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was in force before Law. 4335/2015, however, the court, now adjudicating under the special jurisdiction of property disputes of article 614 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (article 632 par. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and especially in the part where the objection also challenges the order for execution, the jurisdiction is founded on articles 31 par. 2 and 632 par. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was exercised lawfully and within the time limit in accordance with the provisions of articles 632 par. 2 and 934 par. 1b of the Code of Civil Procedure (service report no. ....10.2012 of the bailiff at the Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki .....). Therefore, it must be formally accepted and further investigated, in order to judge the legal and substantive validity of its grounds, regardless of their numbering and characterization in the objection petition. As follows from the combination of the provisions of articles 361 and 874 of the Civil Code, 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 669 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 64-67 of the Legislative Decree 17-7/13-8-1923 "on special provisions on joint-stock companies", the account is closed periodically, unless otherwise agreed, every six months and definitively by termination of the contract, in which case the final balance is due upon its closure with amortization of the individual debits and credits made during the operation of the account. There is no specific form for the declaration of termination of the overdraft account, and the termination becomes effective immediately upon receipt by the addressee (EfPeir 1198/1995 TNP Law). In this case, with the first ground of their objection, the objectors claim mainly that the defendant did not legally terminate the contract linking the parties and, in the alternative, that it terminated it in violation of commercial ethics and the law. In particular, they state that the bank did not properly notify them of their right to proceed with the settlement of the above alleged debt in accordance with the provisions of Law 3816/2010. With this content, the first ground of objection is legally unfounded, because according to the above understanding, the defendant's objection, in order for the termination of the credit agreement that bound the parties and the closure of their open account to be valid, was not required by law to proceed with the clarifications requested by the objectors, given that the termination of their agreement took place in July 2012 (while Law 3816/2010 concerns terminations up to and including 15.03.2010), nor do they claim that the defendant had contractually undertaken such obligations. In any case, from the termination of the contract on 27.07.2012, which was notified to the objectors on 30.07.2012, until the issuance of the payment order in September 2012, a period of one month clearly elapsed and the objectors did not request a settlement of their debt. Consequently, the first ground of objection is dismissable. According to article 626 par. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the payment order is issued upon application by the beneficiary of the claim. The application is filed with the court registry and a report is drawn up under it. According to article 626 par. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application or report must contain: a) what is stipulated in articles 118 and 119 par. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, b) an application for the issuance of a payment order and c) the claim and the exact amount of money or securities with any interest due whose payment is requested. According to par. 3 of the same article, all documents from which the claim and its amount arise must be attached to the application. However, a simple reference to the attached documents is not sufficient, but the application must state the legal relationship from which the claim arises. In this case, with the second ground of their opposition, the opponents claim that the contested payment order must be annulled due to procedural inadmissibility and, in particular, the vagueness that arose regarding its issuance and, in particular, because it does not specify the individual amounts by capital, interest and expenses, the type of expenses, the time period and the exact interest rate. With this content, the second ground of objection is to be rejected as legally unfounded, because according to the provision of article 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application for the issuance of a payment order (and consequently the payment order itself, which is not a court decision but simply an enforceable title) must contain only the reason for the payment, the amount of money to be paid and a payment order and not without anything else and the percentage of the interest rate applied, which can also be easily found from the documents attached to the application for its issuance, namely the credit agreement and the account statement. According to article 915 of the Code of Civil Procedure, forced execution cannot be carried out for a claim subject to a suspensive condition or deadline before the condition is paid or the deadline has expired. The above facts, if they arise in the calendar, must be proven by a public or private document that has evidentiary force and which, according to article 924, paragraph a, of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be served on the defendant for execution together with the copy of the inventory and the check. It follows from the provisions of articles 924, paragraph b and 916 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the check for execution must specify the claim, for the satisfaction of which the forced execution is expedited, in a clear, definite and unambiguous manner, so that the defendant for execution knows what amount and for what reason he is called upon to pay to the expediter, so that his compliance is made possible and in the event of his inaction, the forced execution may be carried out, otherwise the title is not legal and is considered non-existent. That is, it is prohibited to attempt execution for an unsettled claim. The claim is considered settled and therefore there is no violation of article 916 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the amount of the claim is not mentioned in the title but can be determined by numerical calculation (AP 1099/2010 TNP Law, Kerameas/Kondylis/Nikas, ErmKPoL, vol. II, ed.2000, article 916, no. 4). Furthermore, the character of claims as certain and settled depends on objective evidence and not on the debtor's view that the amount of the claim was calculated in an unlawful manner. In the present case, with the third ground of their objection, the objectors claim that the amount of 23,565.31 euros plus interest of 366.20 euros, which they are ordered to pay with the contested payment order, is uncertain and unliquidated, because it is not stated in the payment order dated 01.10.2012 how the amount of 366.20 euros was calculated as the amount of interest required. With this content, the third ground of objection is legally unfounded, because the amount of the objectors' debt is neither uncertain nor unliquidated, since on the one hand it is not subject to a suspensive condition or deadline and on the other hand it is referred to in the title, i.e. in the contested payment order. The fact that the method of calculating the interest is not indicated does not make their debt indefinite or uncertain and unliquidated. Therefore, the third ground of opposition is dismissed. The fourth and fifth grounds of opposition refer to the invalidity of the contested payment order on the grounds that the credit agreement with an open (inter-debt) account, on the basis of which it was issued, contained invalid general terms of transactions. In particular, the opponents refer to the terms of the agreement with numbers 2, 6, 8, 11, 1, 9, 20, 21, 23 and 25, especially with regard to the 2nd of them (guarantor), which they consider invalid as abusive due to their contradiction with Law 2251/1994 "on consumer protection". These two grounds are to be rejected on multiple grounds as legally unfounded and vague: first of all, in this case, a credit agreement was concluded with a cross-debt account to serve the commercial business activity of the 1st objector, which was signed by the 2nd of them as its legal representative (with the additional capacity of guarantor). That is, it is not a consumer credit agreement (mortgage loan or credit card) and therefore the objectors do not fall within the concept of consumer, to whom the provisions of Law 2251/1994 (Case Law 2005/2010, Case Law 1429/2009 LAW) apply. Moreover, the objectors do not, with the above grounds, affect specific items of the account or the total amount of the payment order, so that it becomes easily verifiable by the court by what amounts their debt was illegally burdened by the defendant in application of the general terms of transactions that are invalid in their opinion. With another part of the fourth ground of the objection, the objectors claim that they were burdened with the contribution of Law 128/1975, which, however, does not constitute interest, but an expense of the bank and must be borne by it. They consider that this transfer is illegal and abusive, because it is an obligation of the defendant towards the Bank of Greece and not their own obligation. From the entire text of this ground of opposition, it can be concluded that the opponents consider that the specific term of the contract contains an unjustified excessive commitment on their part towards the bank and therefore contradicts the provisions of articles 2, paragraphs 6 and 7 of Law 2251/1994. With this content, this part of the fourth ground of opposition is legally unfounded and must be rejected, because the transfer of the amount of the contribution of Law 128/1975 to the borrower is legal and there is no question of its conflict with any provision of the legislation (AP 430/2005, EfATH 3670/2012, EfATH 1159/2012, EfATH 4424/2009, EfThes 492/2010 TNP Law), nor is it proven that the defendant actually compounded the said contribution. With the European Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16.2.1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to consumer credit, the year is considered to have 365 days. This rule was incorporated into our national legislation by ministerial decisions (JMD No. Z1-178/13.2.2001 of the Ministers of National Economy and Finance, Justice and the Deputy Minister of Development, Government Gazette 255B79.3.2001 and Ministerial Decision No. Z1-798/25.6.2008 of the Minister of Development, Government Gazette 1353B7 11.7.2008, of which the first applies to card transactions and the second to mortgage loan contracts with a variable interest rate) and is appropriate for consumer contracts. In the remaining contracts, the application of the 360-day year for the calculation of interest has prevailed by law. In particular, according to article 3 par. 1 of Law 2842/2000, any reference to the Athens interbank lending rate (ATH1BOR), which is provided for in existing legal acts within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 1103/1997, is automatically replaced by a reference to the EURIBOR interest rate, which takes into account the actual days and the 360-day year adjusted to the ratio 365 to 360, as the basis for calculating interest, unless a reference to another applicable interest rate has been provided for or agreed or defined. In compliance with the above provisions, the Monetary Policy Council of the Bank of Greece issued the decision no. 30/14.2.2000 (Government Gazette 43A71.3.2000) which entered into force on 10.3.2000, according to which interest is calculated on the basis of a 360-day year. The same body, with its act no. 45/19.12.2000 (chapter VII), defined that the basis for calculating interest in monetary policy operations is considered to be a 360-day year. Therefore, in the field of banking transactions that do not fall under card transactions and floating-rate mortgage loan contracts, calculating interest on the basis of a 360-day year is a legal practice (EfATH 1159/2012, EfATH 1778/2010, EfPeir 469/2009 TNP Law). In this case, the opponents, with the sixth ground of their opposition, state that the defendant, relying on a relevant general term of transactions, recorded in the credit agreement, which the parties concluded, calculated the interest on the principal due based on a year of 360 and not 365 days, resulting in their being charged with additional interest of 664.51 euros, and this calculation is contrary to the provisions of articles 2 par. 6 of Law 2251/1994 and 243 par. 3 of the Civil Code, resulting in the creation of opacity regarding the true amount of interest and the illegal increase in interest by a percentage of 1.3889% per year. According to the opponents' view, a year of 365 days should be taken into account for the calculation of interest. Since the credit agreement concluded between the parties, due to its nature, does not fall into the two aforementioned categories of agreements (card transaction or mortgage loan agreement with a variable interest rate), so that in this case the calculation of interest is imposed based on a year of 365 and not 360 days, the 360-day year was legally taken as the basis for calculating interest, and there is no contradiction with article 243 par. 3 of the Civil Code. Also, from the fact that according to the objection, it was stated in the text of the credit agreement that the interest would be calculated in the above manner and that this was not a unilateral and unannounced calculation of the interest in this manner by the defendant, it is concluded that the principle of transparency and adequate information, which must govern contracts, is met, and their justified expectations as consumers were not denied. Consequently, the sixth ground of objection is legally unfounded and therefore dismissible. Finally, according to article 1 of the 1969/1991 Act on the Bank of Greece, the collection of a commission on loans, the interest rate of which is freely determined by the credit institutions, was prohibited. As an exception, the collection of a management commission is permitted in the case of syndicated loans. This act was repealed by Act No. 2501/2002 of the Hellenic Bank Act (Government Gazette 277A718.11.2002), in Chapter F of which, under the title Lending Fees, it is stipulated that the collection of any fee on all types of loans by credit institutions is not permitted. As an exception, the collection of i) an organization and management fee, in the case of syndicated loans and ii) an inactivity fee on undrawn amounts of credit, regardless of the form of their granting, is permitted. The concept of all kinds of commissions in this chapter does not include fees for any special services provided, one-off expenses and expenses for third parties, such as, for example, notary fees, the costs of assessing and checking real estate titles and registering a mortgage. In this case, with another part of the fourth ground of their objection, the objectors claim that the amounts of money detailed by date, item and justification were debited to their account as expenses for various reasons, and they deny these charges as illegal. With this content, this part of the fourth ground of objection is legally valid, based on No. 2501/2002 of the Bank of Greece Act and therefore must be further examined as to its substantive validity. From the reading of all the documents, without exception, which are submitted by the parties upon request and from their confessions exclusively with regard to the actual facts to which they refer, the following was proven: The first objector is a limited liability company with the object of producing and trading in clothing. The second objector is its legal representative. With the credit agreement no. .../22.07.2003 the first objector received from the defendant bank a credit of €270,000. In this agreement the first objector was represented by the second, which also signed as a guarantor. For the service of the agreement, the account no. ...... was kept. Due to the debtors' failure to meet their obligations, the defendant on 27.07.2012 terminated the credit agreement and closed the above account (service reports no. ... and ... /30.07.2012 of the bailiff at the Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki .....). Also, with her application dated 28.08.2012, she requested the issuance of a payment order and order no. 23158/18.09.2012 payment order of a Judge of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki (as corrected by decision no. 23484/2012 of this court), namely the suspended payment order, by which the opponents were ordered to pay, each jointly and severally, to the defendant the amount of 23,565.31 euros plus interest and legal costs. As regards the legality of the charges contested in one part of the fourth ground of the opposition, it was proven that according to no. 23 general transaction term of the above credit agreement "any obligation to pay any tax, fee, contribution (such as e.g. Law 128/75) or any other charge in favor of the State or any third party, imposed on the capital, interest and commissions of the credit or which are in any way related to this agreement, are borne exclusively by the borrower, to whom they are attributed by debiting the borrower's account. Any costs of any kind, namely, but not limited to, legal costs, mortgage registration, mortgage pre-notation registration, conversion of mortgage pre-notation into mortgage, insurance of real estate encumbered with a mortgage pre-notation or movable property encumbered with a pledge, custody, enforcement or any other costs incurred or to be incurred by the bank due to or in execution of this agreement shall be borne by the borrower and shall be payable by him with interest from their payment by the bank. " In the statement of account no. submitted for the issuance of the contested payment order ...... contains, among others, the following charges: 1) on 06.08.2003, a charge of 537.75 euros for property appraisal costs, 2) on 30.09.2003, a charge of 270.00 euros for account transaction costs, 3) on 22. 12.2003 charge of 270.00 euros for account operating expenses, 4) on 31.03.2004 charge of 270.00 euros for account operating expenses, 5) on 13.05.2004 charge of 12 euros for legalization expenses, 6) on 30.06.2004 charge of 270.00 euros for account operating expenses, 7) on 30.09.2004 charge of 100.00 euros for account operating expenses, 8) on 31.12.2004 charge of 100.00 euros for account operating expenses, 9) on 31.03.2005 charge of 100.00 euros for account operating expenses, 10) on 30.06.2005 charge of 100.00 euros for account transaction costs, 11) on 30.09.2005 a charge of 270.00 euros for account transaction costs, 12) on 23.01.2006 a charge of 100.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 13) on 25.06.2006 a charge of 270.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 14) on 23.10.2006 a charge of 240.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 15) on 23.04.2007 a charge of 50.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 16) on 22°. 10.2007 charge of 50.00 euros for late transfer of expenses, 17) on 21.01.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for late transfer of expenses, 18) on 21.04.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for late transfer of expenses, 19) on 21.07.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for late transfer of expenses, 20) on 24.07.2009 charge of 15.00 euros for late payment - expenses, 21) on 21.04.2010 charge of 200.00 euros for late transfer of expenses, 22) on 21.07.2010 charge of 200.00 euros for late transfer of expenses, 23) on 21.04.2011, a charge of 250.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 24) on 21.10.2011, a charge of 250.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 25) on 23.01.2012, a charge of 250.00 euros for the transfer of expenses in arrears, 26) on 10.01.2006, a charge of 100.00 euros for the calendar charge of expenses, 27) on 11.04.2006, a charge of 270.00 euros for the calendar charge of expenses, 28) on 31.08.2006, a charge of 864.92 euros for the calendar charge - insurance expenses, 29) on 02a. 10.2006 charge of 240.00 euros for daily expense charge, 30) on 04.04.2007 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge - P.O. approval costs, 31) on 03.10.2007 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge, 32) on 02.01.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge, 33) on 02. 04.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge, 34) on 01.07.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge, 35) on 01.10.2008 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge, 36) on 02.01.2009 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge, 37) on 01.04.2009 charge of 50.00 euros for daily expense charge - expenses for approval of the P.O., 38) on 01.07.2009 charge of 275.00 euros for daily expense charge - expenses for the second quarter of 2009, 39) on 01.10.2009 charge of 325.00 euros for calendar expense charge - expenses of the third quarter, 40) on 06.04.2010 charge of 200.00 euros for calendar expense charge - expenses of the second quarter, 41) on 15.07.2010 charge of 200.00 euros for calendar expense charge - expenses of the third quarter of 2010, 42) on 04.04.2011 charge of 250.00 euros for calendar expense charge - expenses of the first quarter of 2011, 43) on 03.10.2011 charge of 250.00 euros for calendar expense charge -- expenses of the evaluation of the file of the third quarter of 2011. and 44) on 02.01.2012, a charge of 250.00 euros for a daily charge of expenses - expenses for evaluating a P.O. file. The addition of these amounts yields a sum of 7,949.67 euros. The existence of the aforementioned no. 23 general transaction condition of the credit agreement does not make all the charges lawful without any other reason and in accordance with the content of no. 2501/2002 of the Hellenic Bank Act and on the other hand it was not proven that in the case at hand all the actions listed as justification for the charges were actually carried out, so that they are justified. The charges under the pretext of account operating expenses, legalization expenses and transfer of expenses in arrears have no legal basis, because the complainants were informed of the balance of their debt by the bank itself, that is, by its competent employees and not by third parties collaborating with it, in order to justify the periodic charge of the amount of 50.00 or 100.00 euros or 270.00 euros as remuneration for the provision of a special service or as an expense in favor of a third party. The charges with the justifications of calendar expense charge - P.O. approval costs, quarterly costs, file evaluation costs, insurance policy costs, also have no legal basis, because the above actions were carried out by the relevant employees of the defendant bank and not by third parties collaborating with it, so that these charges could be justified as remuneration for the provision of a special service or as an expense in favor of a third party. The above charges do not fall under the exceptions established in Chapter F of 2501/2002 of the Greek Bank Act, because they are neither fees for the organization and management of syndicated loans nor for inactivity fees on the undrawn amounts of the credit granted to the first objector. Similarly, they are not fees for special services provided, nor for one-off expenses or expenses in favor of a third party. Therefore, the above charges are illegal except for one, namely the charge of 537.75 euros for property valuation costs, which is legal, because it is clear that this is a payment of the fee of a third party, namely the appraiser (broker or other special consultant) who carried out the valuation. The illegal nature of these charges was established regardless of whether the aforementioned general terms and conditions of the credit agreement, by which credit was granted with an open overdraft account, allowed the collection of the above amounts of money. The result of these charges was to illegally increase the amount of the defendants' debt by the amount of (7,949.67-537.75) 7,411.92 euros. This amount was not deducted but was instead taken into account for the calculation of their debt during the process of closing the account, terminating the contract and issuing the payment order. Thus, the amount that the opponents were ordered to pay to the defendant was unlawfully increased by 7,411.92 euros. Therefore, this part of the fourth ground of opposition is partly substantively well-founded, and the contested payment order and the cheque for payment communicated with it must be annulled in respect of this amount. After this, the above part of the fourth ground being partially accepted as substantially well-founded and the remaining grounds of the opposition being rejected in accordance with the above, the opposition must be partially accepted, the contested payment order and check for payment must be annulled in the amount of -7,411.92- seven thousand four hundred eleven euros and ninety-two cents and the defendant must be ordered to pay part of the legal costs of the opponents due to her partial defeat (article 178, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure), as specifically specified in the operative part. FOR THESE REASONS, IT TRIALS the parties adversarially. IT PARTIALLY ACCEPTS the opposition under registration no. 31412/2012. CANCELS in respect of the amount of -7,411.92- seven thousand four hundred eleven euros and ninety-two cents: a) the payment order no. 23158/2012 of the Judge of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, as corrected by the corrective decision no. 23484/2012 (payment order) and b) the check dated 01.10.2012 for payment of the amount of 23,565.31 euros plus interest and costs, which was drawn up under an exact copy of the first enforceable inventory of the above payment order, signed by the lawyer of Thessaloniki ....., and served on the opponents on 04. 10.2012. ORDERING the defendant to pay part of the legal costs of the opponents, which it sets at the amount of -400- four hundred euros. JUDGED, decided and published in its hearing in Thessaloniki, in an extraordinary public session, on April 5, 2018, without the presence of the parties or their attorneys. THE JUDGE THE SECRETARY
THOMAS STEF. HAPPY
LAWYER
English 
Greek 
French 
Chinese 
German