Issuing Authority: Thessaloniki Court of First Instance
Proceedings: Family Matters
Lawyer Who Appeared in Court: Athanasios Rozou
Our client, the mother of a child who was a minor at the time, brought an action against the father with requests; a) to be entrusted with the custody of the child, b) the hours of contact between the child and the father to be determined, and c) (the father) to pay her monthly support to cover the child's living expenses.
In the case below, handled by our law firm, an unemployed mother, whose marital cohabitation with her husband was ended in 2013, lived in a rented house with her child. The Court entrusted the sole custody of the child to the mother, calculated the child's monthly necessary costs at 550,00€ and ordered the defendant to pay the sum of 300,00€ per month as maintenance for their child until he reached the age of majority, and finally rejected the mother's request for free contact between the father and the child as inadmissible for lack of standing in the act, taking the view that, in the present case, only the father (who does not have custody) is entitled to apply for contact with the child.
The change in use and the occupation of common areas are the most frequent reasons for confrontation in apartment buildings between the horizontal property owners.
“Horizontal properties” in multi-unit mixed-use or residential buildings is a Greek legal term for units that can be owned as individual properties (for instance: flats and ground-floor stores). The owner of a “horizontal property” has the absolute ownership of his “horizontal property” but he shares the ownership of the common areas of the building, such as the main entrance of the building, the car park, and the backyard. Such cases of misuse are, for example, the use of the car parks for the storage of movable property, the construction of improvised and arbitrary (urban planning) shacks as storage areas in pre-gardens and lawns, as well as the parking of bicycles and two-wheeled vehicles at the main entrances of apartment buildings.
A bank filed an Application for Revocation from Katseli Law (Greek law for personal bankruptcy) against a debtor due to the debtor’s failure to pay court-ordered monthly installments for three months. The debtor argued that his delay in payment resulted from an unavoidable reduction in income and justified his noncompliance. The Court denied the Application for Revocation.
The following case concerns our client who was subjected to the beneficial provisions of the Greek Personal Bankruptcy Law in 2012, with an initial total debt of €185,000 (procured from consumer loans and credit cards). He managed to trim that debt by about 60%. It was the first personal insolvency petition filed by our law firm in June 2011. Because our client could not pay the court-ordered monthly installments in full for more than three months, one of his creditors, a credit institution, filed an Application for Revocation against him in March 2018. The creditor submitted the application in accordance with the provisions of article 11 par. 2 and 3 of Law 3869/2010. In that application, the creditor requested the Court rescind the earlier order for reduced payment and order repayment of the debt in full, plus accrued interest.
