“The decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court regarding the method of calculating interest on debts subject to the judicial settlement provisions of Law 3869/2010 constitutes a clear, binding, and indisputable judicial ruling. This is a decision of particular social and institutional significance, as it restores the correct interpretation of the law and ensures substantive protection for thousands of borrowers,” PASOK MP Milena Apostolaki noted in a statement.
As she notes, “The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court clearly ruled that interest in court-approved repayment plans is calculated on the monthly installment and not on the total principal of the debt. This decision is not subject to negotiation, interpretive caveats, or selective application. In a state governed by the rule of law, final court rulings are fully enforced without delay.
Finance Minister Kyriakos Pierrakakis’s references to “studying the consequences” and seeking “balances” raise legitimate questions. What exactly does the minister mean when he says that “we will seek a middle ground and judge our intervention accordingly”? Since when has the implementation of a final decision by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court depended on the search for a “middle ground” or on the scope of government interventions based on the interests of the affected parties? Compliance with judicial decisions cannot depend on the aspirations of those who may be affected by them, nor, of course, on the executive branch’s view of them.
The State must ensure immediate compliance by all involved parties—banks, servicers, and any other relevant entities—with full debt restructuring and any necessary corrective measures arising from the Supreme Court’s decision.
The implementation of this decision is not a matter of political choice. It is a matter of respect for judicial decisions and the consequent protection of social cohesion. And for this reason, we will stand against any attempt to delay, undermine, or indirectly challenge the judicial ruling.
Because the protection that the judiciary has granted to citizens is immediately due, and government decisions cannot call it into question, with the apparent aim of favoring the priorities of banks and servicers.