Summary: This article examines the legislative framework for the creditor's submission of a "declaration of continuation" following a previously canceled foreclosure auction, as well as the debtor's methods of defense—particularly the abusive conduct of credit institutions—as grounds for objecting to and annulling the submitted declaration, thereby preventing the planned auction.
1. Introduction
The most common method by which a creditor enforces a claim secured by an enforceable title is through forced seizure and auction of the debtor's assets. Upon issuing the seizure report, the auction date must be set at least seven months after the date of seizure.
However, auctions may be canceled for various reasons: lack of bidders, legal suspension of foreclosure activity (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic), a court order postponing the auction, or even a mutual decision between the parties to delay the auction while pursuing an out-of-court settlement.
If an auction is canceled, the creditor has the right to reschedule it by submitting a continuation declaration to the auction official (usually the notary public appointed in the seizure report). A new auction date is then set within two to three months of the declaration, ensuring the process resumes quickly.
Crucially, in most cases the continuation declaration is not formally served to the debtor. Instead, the new auction date is published on the official judicial auction website, which must occur within five days of filing the declaration. This lack of direct notice has drawn criticism, as it places a disproportionate burden on the debtor to monitor public bulletins regularly and indefinitely.
A distinct procedure applies when the auction is canceled due to absence of bidders, governed by separate legal provisions.
2. Debtor's Defense Against the Continuation Declaration
At this stage, the law provides the debtor with a specific remedy: the right to challenge the continuation declaration by filing an objection within thirty days of the public posting. The court decision on this matter is final and cannot be appealed or reconsidered. If the objection is successful, the continuation declaration is annulled, and the auction cannot proceed.
Permissible grounds for objection include procedural flaws, such as improper publication. However, earlier defects (e.g., flaws in the original seizure or enforcement title) cannot be raised at this stage—unless they were already successfully raised in a prior objection and led to annulment of earlier enforcement actions. If not previously addressed, those grounds are considered inadmissible during this phase.
3. Abusive Conduct as Grounds for Annulment
Apart from procedural defects, the continuation declaration can be challenged on the basis of abuse of rights by the creditor. If the declaration is submitted in bad faith—for instance, during ongoing negotiations for debt settlement—it may be annulled by the court.
The fact that a creditor's action causes significant harm to the debtor is not, in itself, sufficient to deem it abusive. Additional factors must be present. Financial institutions, due to their powerful role and the trust-based nature of lending relationships, are held to high standards of good faith and must avoid excessive, unjustified consequences for their clients.
4. Notable Court Decisions
- Decision No. 1232/2022 (Piraeus): The creditor submitted a continuation declaration despite being in active debt restructuring talks with the debtor. The court ruled the action abusive, noting the debtor had already paid a large settlement amount and reasonably expected the creditor to delay enforcement.
- Decision No. 149/2025 (Chalkidiki): A continuation was declared while a lump-sum debt settlement agreement was already in place. The court found that bureaucratic delays—not the debtor's fault—prevented immediate execution of the agreement and ruled the declaration abusive.
- Decision No. 344/2025 (Lamia): The debtor had applied for debt restructuring through a government mechanism, but the creditor arbitrarily rejected the application, citing unsubstantiated breaches. The court found the creditor's conduct unjustified and annulled the declaration.
- Decision No. 2287/2025 (Athens): The creditor had already approved the restructuring plan submitted via the online platform. Delays were due to pending approvals by public authorities. The court ruled that initiating enforcement while awaiting final approval was abusive.
- Decision No. 204/2024 (Chalkidiki): The debtor made multiple formal and informal attempts to settle the debt, including offering monthly installments. The creditor ignored these efforts and proceeded with the auction. The court found this behavior abusive, especially as it involved the debtor's primary residence.
- Decision No. 1042/2025 (Athens): The debtor had agreed to repay €700,000, but the creditor demanded payment within five months. When the debtor proposed a two-year plan instead, the creditor rejected it and proceeded with the auction. The court ruled this unreasonable and annulled the declaration.
5. Conclusion
Debtors subject to enforcement proceedings have clear legal tools to defend themselves at every stage of the process. Special attention must be paid to creditor behavior that appears abusive—particularly when the creditor simultaneously engages in settlement talks while pressing ahead with auction procedures. Courts have increasingly condemned such contradictory conduct, recognizing it as unfair and inconsistent with the principles of good faith.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
