Skip to main content

Judgment 1851/2019 (Personal Bankruptcy)


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.

Our main claim to the Court was that our client's failure to make payments to his creditor was due to force majeure (the cuts of his salary and the loss of his spouse's employment). His difficult financial situation rendered him unable to file a request to reduce the amount of the monthly installments of the settlement.

The Court upheld our claim and rejected the creditor's Application for Revocation against our client. It ruled that delayed payment was due to serious reasons that did not allow him to act swiftly or to seek to modify the monthly installments by time and amount.

With the Court's rejection of the Application for Deduction, our client remained under the protection of the beneficial provisions of the Katseli Law.

Our law office was one of the first to deal with the personal insolvency law. There have been dozens of positive rulings in cases we handled with very favorable settlements and an extensive reduction of debtors' debts. We are now also intensively involved in debt settlement in accordance with the new Law 4605/2019, under which borrowers can protect their main dwellings and which essentially constitutes the "new personal insolvency law".

Indeed, Rozou & Associates’ website offers the Eligibility Form by Article 71 L.4605/2019, so that borrowers can anonymously check whether they are eligible to qualify for its protection. In addition, several debtors have hired us to appeal court decisions rejecting their personal bankruptcy petitions. You can complete the special Form of Second Chance in Katseli Law on our website.

Finally, our law firm even undertakes settling of debtors' debts extrajudicially in direct negotiation with banks and credit institutions. Contact us today to schedule a private meeting in our office or via Skype to learn the most advantageous solution for settling your debts.

[Extract from Court Ruling]

This significant deterioration in the applicant's financial situation has led to his complete inability to cover the legal costs of applying for the reform of the above-mentioned judicial decision of debt settlement. Moreover, his income exceeded the provision’s top limit for free state legal aid and excluded that possibility. Therefore, the applicant has no other income to cover his basic living needs or to ensure a minimum standard of living. Fulfilling the obligation to pay the monthly installment of €520, as set by the court decision would seriously jeopardize his survival. Therefore, the cause of force majeure applies to this person and justifies non-compliance to the settlement. Consequently, the conditions for his revocation from the settlement are not met, and the present petition should be dismissed as unfounded in fact. Finally, the costs of the proceedings should be offset between the parties (article 179 CCP).


The Court DISMISSES the application.