Following the discussion at the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs of the Hellenic Parliament on Friday, 30 October 2026, during which the issue of its failure to be represented was raised, the Association of Loan and Credit Claims Management Companies (EEDADP) clarifies the facts set out in a letter to the Committee’s chairman, Georgios Kotronias.
More specifically, the EEDADP said in a statement that it was invited by email to attend the Committee meeting in a message sent at 9.04 a.m. on 30 October, less than an hour before the scheduled start. Both the EEDADP’s chairman and vice-chairman were abroad due to prior professional commitments, making their attendance — either in person or by videoconference — practically impossible.
Nevertheless, the association said, and within the very limited time available, the EEDADP’s Legal Adviser contacted the relevant services by email, explaining that it was objectively unable to attend at that time and expressing the association’s willingness to appear at another time set by Parliament, or to submit a memorandum setting out its views on the bill under discussion from the Ministry of National Economy and Finance.
The EEDADP is the institutional representative body for the claims management sector, one of the three pillars of the financial system. The sector is supervised by the Bank of Greece and actively participates in all institutional processes. The association has never avoided or refused to take part in parliamentary proceedings, as demonstrated by the many times its board has appeared at similar hearings.
The EEDADP and its board have the utmost respect and appreciation for Parliament’s work and are always available to parliamentary bodies to provide information, in writing or orally, or to be heard on the draft law from the Ministry of National Economy and Finance concerning the supervision and regulation of the activities of its member companies.
It is clear from the above that the representative’s absence was due solely to an objective inability to attend. Claims that the association was unwilling to appear before Parliament or had acted contrary to institutional norms do not reflect reality and are unfair to the association’s consistent institutional conduct throughout its seven years of operation, the statement concludes.