After yesterday publication of the decision of the full Plenary of the Supreme Court on the funds, The Athens Bar Association (DSA), with today’s resolution calls on the State to take immediate legislative initiatives for the horizontal suspension of the auctions of the first home.

At the same time, the DSA announces that it will investigate the possibility of appealing before the competent European institutions for the violation of Article 107 of the TFEU concerning indirect state subsidies, regarding the issue of the operation of the funds.

The resolution of the Board of Directors is as follows:

“DSA, in the context of its institutional role and social mission, has consistently and practically taken the side of our economically weak fellow citizens, whether vulnerable borrowers or consumers of electricity (abstaining from foreclosures against the primary residence, intervention in the Supreme Court for the case of the legalization of claims management companies, etc.). In our fight for justice, the rule of law and society, we remain unyielding, no matter how many obstacles institutional and extra-institutional factors try to put up.

Embarrassed, both we and the Greek society, learned from a leak in the press the result of the secret (!) Plenary conference of the CA, which allegedly favored the funds and servicers by majority, in the case in which the DSA intervened in favor of of borrowers.

The DSA publicly formulates three questions that touch the core of judicial independence:

1st: How is it possible for the Plenary of the Supreme Court to form a judicial opinion in 8 days (!) from the closing of the file and to issue a decision based on its full reasoning within another 8 days (!) in a very difficult legal and procedural issue with huge social and economic implications, with thousands of pages of pleadings and related, while a normal court decision takes months to years to issue, and the entire legal community constantly and with full justification complains about the time it takes to deliver justice?

2nd: Will the responsibilities for the blatantly illegal breach of the secrecy of the Supreme Court conference be attributed or covered up?

3rd: How to explain the early knowledge of the above judicial review by the Bank of Greece in the Financial Stability Report (November 2022), which from the first moment we labeled as a form of attempt to influence the decision?

We have also proven that the Greek State suffered an estimated loss of 58.8 billion euros from the application of the favorable for banks and funds Law 3156/2003 from securitizations, which provides for a complete exemption from fourteen (14) taxes (direct or indirect tax, stamp duty, VAT, levy or rights in favor of the public or third parties). And the principal tax must be paid in the country of origin of the fund and not in Greece (Luxembourg, Ireland, etc.)

With these data, the DSA will first investigate the possibility of appealing before the competent European institutions for the violation of Article 107 of the TFEU concerning indirect state subsidies in this case.

As we have pointed out over time, the institutional protection of vulnerable debtors after the protection of Law 3869/10 is constantly decreasing: both with 4345/15 and with 4605/19. With the new bankruptcy law (4738/20) every provision protecting the ownership of the first home of vulnerable borrowers was abolished, giving them the only way out is to stay in it as tenants. The existing out-of-court debt settlement mechanism is ineffective, since it provides for the voluntary participation of banks and funds in the settlement process. It is characteristic that after almost two years of operation of the institution, only 3,323 applications have been accepted, corresponding to debts of 1.085 million euros in relation to the total amount of private debt of 270 billion euros, i.e. regulated claims amount to only 0.4% of of total private debt. The government’s attempted interventions in the out-of-court settlement, as a result of the social pressure caused by the aggressive strategy of funds and banks, are an “empty shirt”, completely pretentious and useless, and do not respond to the need to find a substantial and effective solution to the existing problem they only come to solve communication-type pre-election goals. Also, the responsibility of the governments that did not resolve the issue that preoccupied the Plenary of the Supreme Court interpretatively and “threw the ball” to it is eternal, while they should have explicitly resolved the issue of the applicable rule of law with a clear legislative provision.

For this reason, we call on the State to take immediate legislative initiatives: a) for the horizontal suspension of auctions of the first home of bona fide and vulnerable borrowers until the above effective protection is provided, b) to establish a permanent, comprehensive, realistic and effective debt settlement framework for bona fide and vulnerable debtors, which will also include the protection of their first home ownership.

The only “red” dividing line that clearly divides society today is none other than the one that runs transversely through its body, and on one side of History are those who actually support the weak links of society and on the other side, those who either their actions – or their indifference – “put their backs” on the voracious appetites of powerful economic agglomerations.

The legal profession, faithful to history and its struggles, has chosen to be on one side of history and fight its struggles regardless of whether it becomes a nuisance to interests and powers of all kinds.”