23 MARCH 2015
Seizure of immovable property blocked

In 2007 a borrower took out a business loan of 376,700 Swiss francs (230,000 euros) with a three-year installment protection. Hepaid 148,000 eurosupuntil 2012. The bank terminated the loan due to debts and proceeded to the seizure of the borrower’s whole immovable property with the aim of putting it to auction.

Today the debt amounts to 252,066 Swiss francs (235,000 euros)! The borrower managed to stop the compulsory enforcement and filed an application for injunction in order to arrest the auction sale of his property. The One Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki granted the borrower’s application for injunction and arrested the auction sale of his immovable property.

The court ruled that the terms defining the manner of payment of the loan, based on the exchange rate at the time of each payment, were vague and non-transparent. Moreover, the defining mechanism of the exchange rate between the domestic and foreign currency had not been properly and unambiguously clarified to the borrower; neither had he been informed on the financial consequences in case there was a change in the exchange rate at the expense of the domestic currency, which resulted in the currency-risk taking by the borrower lightly and without awareness of the consequences at the time of payment of his loan.

Seizure of immovable property blocked

In 2007 a borrower took out a business loan of 376,700 Swiss francs (230,000 euros) with a three-year installment protection. Hepaid 148,000 eurosupuntil 2012. The bank terminated the loan due to debts and proceeded to the seizure of the borrower’s whole immovable property with the aim of putting it to auction.

Today the debt amounts to 252,066 Swiss francs (235,000 euros)! The borrower managed to stop the compulsory enforcement and filed an application for injunction in order to arrest the auction sale of his property. The One Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki granted the borrower’s application for injunction and arrested the auction sale of his immovable property.

The court ruled that the terms defining the manner of payment of the loan, based on the exchange rate at the time of each payment, were vague and non-transparent. Moreover, the defining mechanism of the exchange rate between the domestic and foreign currency had not been properly and unambiguously clarified to the borrower; neither had he been informed on the financial consequences in case there was a change in the exchange rate at the expense of the domestic currency, which resulted in the currency-risk taking by the borrower lightly and without awareness of the consequences at the time of payment of his loan.

Most popular