“It is now clear that the decision by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court regarding the method for calculating the monthly installment under the judicial settlement provisions of Law 3869/2010—which protected thousands of primary residences—has caused obvious consternation within the government,” notes PASOK’s relevant sector head Milena Apostolaki, in her response to related statements by Finance Minister K. Pierrakakis.
“How else can one interpret the fact that the Finance Minister never misses an opportunity to cast doubt on its full implementation? Just a short while ago, in an interview, he stated once again that the Ministry of Finance is ‘studying’ the decision and that, while it will be implemented, the ‘best way to implement it’ is being sought.
The decision is neither vague nor in need of interpretation. The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court did not issue an advisory opinion for consultation with the funds and servicers. It issued a binding judicial decision. And the decision is absolutely clear that the lawful method of calculating interest on the arrangements under Law 3869/2010 is based on the monthly installment and not on the total principal.
Mr. Pierrakakis, who, in a display of political arrogance, claimed that the opposition likely “has not read” the ruling, must answer clearly: what exactly is it that he continues to study? Because there is no room here for creative interpretations. The only option is the immediate implementation of the decision.
But a question also arises: when the decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court regarding the ability of funds and servicers to conduct foreclosures was to the detriment of borrowers’ interests, where was the invocation of “case-by-case analysis,” “balance,” and “best practice”? The government did not behave in the same way; it did not ask for time, nor did it cite complexity. It immediately implemented the decision favorable to the interests of the banks, funds, and servicers.
Today, however, as the courts vindicate borrowers and restore legality to the method of calculating debts, the government appears hesitant.
In the same interview, the Minister of Finance presented—once again—the out-of-court mechanism as a success story, without, however, providing a complete picture of the actual viability of the arrangements he cites. Let the Ministry answer: how many of the arrangements made are still in effect, how many were terminated, or how many have “fallen back into arrears”? The government is deliberately cultivating an inaccurate picture of the actual number of arrangements that are in effect and are viable. The reality is that the current out-of-court mechanism is a complete failure, and the majority of the arrangements end up not being honored.
Finally, Mr. Pierrakakis announced once again that the Real Estate Acquisition and Leaseback Agency will begin operations “in the fall.” For years, citizens have been hearing announcements about a tool to protect primary residences, yet it has not yet been put into operation. "Protection of the home cannot be constantly postponed to the future, nor can it remain a promise that is perpetually put off, while foreclosures proceed and financial pressures intensify," concludes Ms. Apostolaki.