With the no. 481/AF/2023 Decision of the Single Member Court of First Instance of Veria (injunction proceeding), in a case successfully handled by our office, the Court accepted it Objection according to article 954 of the Civil Code and ordered the correction of report of forced seizure and corresponding excerpt with the increase in the price of the first offer by 170,000 euros, i.e. from 580,000 euros to 750,000 euros, due to speculation substantial and significant damage to the breaker, which has a clear interest in achieving a larger auction.
The body of Decision No. 481/ΑΤ/2023 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Veria is quoted.
Decision Number 481/AF/2023
(No. of opposition filing:………….)
THE SINGLE-MEMBER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BERIA
SAFEGUARDS PROCEDURE
It was formed by Judge Gavriel Rizo, Court of First Instance, who was appointed by the President of Court of First Instance, without the cooperation of the secretary.
He met publicly in his audience on the 18ththe December 2023, to judge the appeal with filing number 625/ΑΤ/2023, with the object of correcting a confiscation report between:
Of ANAKOPTOUSA: An anonymous company with the name <<…………………………………………>>, which was represented by the attorney Lawyer of the Thessaloniki Bar Association, Thomas Kalokiri, who filed a memorandum.
KATHI'S REVIEW: …..
The objector requests that her objection from 11.12.2023, filed at the registry of this Court with file number 625/ΑΦ/2023, be accepted, which was determined to be heard during the mentioned at the beginning of this meeting.
During today's discussion of the case, the appellant's attorney developed his allegations and requested that they be accepted.
AFTER STUDYING THE DISTRICT
CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THE LAW
From the no. ………….. /13.12.2023 service report of the bailiff of the district of the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki based in the Court of First Instance of Veria ……………………., which the objector submits, it appears that an exact copy of the objection in question with the act of determining jurisdiction and the summons to discuss the trial referred to at the beginning of this document, was duly served within the set deadline on each objection (articles 122 par. 1, 123, 124, par. 1 and 2) ,126 par. 1 per a', 127 par. 1, 142,924 and 686 par. 2 and 4 of the Civil Code). During this trial, however, the latter did not appear during the presentation of the case from the order of the relevant exhibit and did not take part in its discussion and must, therefore, be tried in absentia. The Court, however, must proceed with the discussion of the case as if all the parties were present (articles 687 par. 1, 690 par. 1, 691 par. 1 and 696 par. 1 of the Civil Code).
With the objection in question, the objector, invoking a legitimate interest according to the particulars noted in the introductory document, requests that the no. …………./2023 report of forced seizure of immovable property of the bailiff of the district of the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki based in the Court of First Instance of Veria ………………………………………. and the no. ………./2023 extract of the compulsory seizure of immovable property of the above bailiff, by virtue of which the immovable property of the objector described in particular in the introduction of her own application is exposed on ……………2024 to a compulsory auction by electronic means with the acceleration of the , located in ………….. and already ………….. Imathias, because, as she claims, the assessment of her value and the price of the first offer fall short of the actual one, as well as to condemn her to its legal costs. With the above content and requests, the legal challenge competently in substance and in place is introduced before this Court (articles 933 par. 1 and 2 and 954 par. 4 of the Civil Code), in order to be adjudicated during the pending procedure of interim measures (articles 215 et seq. ., 585 ff., 954 par. 4 sec. B of the Civil Code), after it was filed in the registry of this Court on 12.12.2023, i.e. at least fifteen working days before the day of the auction and is legal, relying on the provisions of articles 106, 176, 189 par. 1, 191, 954 par. 4 and 933 par. 2 of the Civil Code. It must, therefore, be further investigated as to its essential validity.
From all the documents that the objector presents, as well as from the lessons of common experience, which are taken into account ex officio (article 336 par. 4 of the Civil Code), the following are presumed: By virtue of no. …………./2023 report of forced seizure of immovable property of the bailiff of the district of the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki based in the Court of First Instance of Veria ……………………. and to satisfy her claim, the opposition, originating from no. ……………….. payment order of the Judge of this Court, the below described property owned by the objector was forcibly seized, namely a divisible part of a larger plot of ………………………… square meters (…… ……………sq.m.), located in the special location <<……………..>> of the property area …………………., and already ………….., of the Municipality …………… of the regional unit of Imathia, of the region of Central Macedonia, former Mortgage Office of Veria and now Land Registry Office of Veria, bordering around ……………………………. and ………………………………….., and specifically on …… , as well as on all buildings, mechanical installations and machines on it. In particular, within the above-mentioned field there is[….]. The value of the confiscated real estate, which by virtue of no. …../2023 excerpt of the forced seizure of immovable property of the above bailiff, is exposed to a forced public auction on ………2024 by electronic means before the auction officer ……………………………….., notary public Verias and which is fully described in the confiscation report, so as to satisfy the purpose of the provision of article 954 of the Criminal Code, in order to specify the person seized and avoid raising any doubt regarding his identity, was estimated at the amount of 580,000.00 euros and in the same amount was determined and the price of the first offer thereof. Furthermore, it is probable that the property in question is located [...] Taking into account the location, the position, the orientation, the area of the field and the buildings on it, the urban elements, the intended use, age, quality of construction, level of maintenance, current state, layout, spaces and prospects for further utilization of the property in question, in combination with relevant comparative data from recent similar sales of related properties in the wider area, as they emerge from the research of the real estate market, it is probable that the real and commercial value of the confiscated item exceeds the upper amount, which was initially estimated and amounts to the total amount of 750,000 euros. However, the price of 836,000 euros, cited by the objector as the market value of the property, is considered excessive under the assumptions listed above, so that the full acceptance of this assessment is estimated to lead to a lack of interest from bidders and, ultimately, to cancellation of the auction. Therefore, the value of the appraised property at the time of seizure amounts to an amount that does not fall short of the amount of 750,000.00 euros, in which the price of the first offer must also be set (articles 993 par. 2, 995 par. 1 CPolD, 1 ,2,3, and 4 PD 59/2016). On the other hand, it is likely that if the auction is carried out at the low price of the first bid mentioned in the projected execution acts, substantial and significant damage will occur to the objector, which has a clear interest in achieving a larger auction. As a consequence of all this, the legal challenge must be partially accepted as well-founded and from a substantial point of view, the contested seizure report and its extract in terms of the appraisal price and first offer must be corrected and the publication of this report must be ordered in particular in dispositive interspersed. Finally, the court costs of the present opposition must be distributed between the parties according to the size of their victory and defeat and thus the defendant, who was comparatively defeated to a greater extent, should be sentenced to a corresponding part of the court costs of the objector, according to with the particulars noted in the operative part of the present (articles 106, 178 par. 1, 189 par. 1 and 191 of the Civil Code), while a default judgment is not defined, since the decision on the request for injunctive measures, whether accepting or rejecting it, is not subject to appeal means (article 699 of the Civil Code), therefore also in opposition to a default judgment, while in any case, against this decision, which was issued on a trial concerning the execution, it is not allowed to challenge a default judgment (article 937 par. 1 para. B' of the Civil Code, b ΄. EfAth 2823/2001 HellDni 2001.950)
FOR THOSE REASONS
HE JUDGES in the absence of the opposition
ACCEPTED partly the objection
AVAILABLE the correction of the report no.……/2023 of the forced seizure of immovable property of the bailiff of the district of the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki based in the Court of First Instance of Veria ………………………….. and the no. ……./2023 excerpt of the forced seizure of immovable property of the same above-mentioned bailiff, in terms of the appraisal price and first offer of the property described therein and in the history of the present seized property.
DEFINES the appraisal price and the first offer price of the confiscated property referred to in the immediately preceding provision in the amount of seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000.00) euros.
AVAILABLE the posting of this decision by the secretariat of this Court, no later than 12:00 noon on the eighth day before the crucial auction (which is set for ………2024), on the auction publication website of the Judicial Bulletin Publications of the Electronic National Social Security Agency (e-EFKA).
CONDEMNING each objection to part of the court costs of the objector, which he sets at the amount of two hundred (200.00) euros.
Judged, decided and published in Veria, in an extraordinary public meeting in his audience, on December 22, 2023, without the presence of the parties and the attorney of the objector, in the presence of the Secretary …………………….
Thomas Steph. Summer
MDE lawyer
English 
Greek 
French 
Chinese 
German