His decision Supreme Court For auctions sparked a heated political confrontation in the run-up to the elections, was handed down less than a month after its decision in a plenary session of the Supreme Court.

The comment and reaction was caused by the fact of its extremely short release, in addition to the content of the decision itself, which, in addition to the purely legal part, acquired a political dimension.

But how was it with loans and auctions in the plenary session of the Supreme Court and what exactly the Supreme Court decided.

The case, which involves thousands of borrowers across the territory, has reached the Plenum of the Supreme Court, and has taken the Supreme Court many times since 2019, with a total of seven judgments so far, according to Supreme Court sources, according to Supreme Court sources. on this matter by the Departments of the Supreme Court.

Of these, six spoke in favor of the opinion, which also prevailed at the Plenum by an overwhelming majority (59 in favor and only 9 against), that is, red credit management companies can, in accordance with the law adopted in 2015 and the legislation of 2003, take legal action in as participants in auction procedures, that is, to participate in enforcement procedures, and not be limited only to sending extrajudicial representatives.

However, the fact that in 2022 the Department A2 of the Supreme Court issued a decision with an opposite opinion led to the case being referred to the Plenum of the Supreme Court.

A decision on the issue of NPLs and asset management companies has been brewing for months in the Supreme Court after a single ruling that contradicted others as thousands of NPL cases were pending across the region, Supreme Court sources said. remained without trial until the Supreme Court issued clarifications on this issue, and the borrowers’ lawyers massively obstructed the auctions.

Thus, the Plenum of the Supreme Court finally considered the case on January 26, and its decision was made public less than a month later, on February 16.

Sources in the Supreme Court, in which turned to “K” for the almost unusual issuance of such a serious decision in the “zero” period, they gave the explanation that this was because the case was already known to a large number of supreme judges who considered the relevant case in divisions of the Supreme Court and rendered the relevant decisions before the plenary session.

On the other hand, the same sources emphasized that the unresolved situation with thousands of cases across Greece, with the courts waiting to hear what the Supreme Court would say, created the need for an immediate resolution, which was taken seriously by the President of the Supreme Court, Maria Georgiou, to determine the trial and the conference to make a decision.

As for the substance of the decision of the Supreme Court, sources in the Supreme Court clarify to “K” that the decision of the Plenum was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the laws of 2015 (4354) and the legislation of the Russian Federation. 2003 (3156) considering that management companies can also take legal action at the stage of auctions, interpreting the current legislation providing for this possibility. The same sources report that the decision does not concern first home auctions, but has an impact on large loans, which were in the “red” zone for years, until the 1980s.