Only in 2001, with the revision of the Constitution, did it become possible to enforce monetary claims against the state. The enforcement of a monetary claim against the state is governed by the provisions of law 3068/2002 (see particularly Article 4 thereof).
The enforcement of monetary claims in full, and in a timely and effective manner, is one of the three forms of legal and judicial protection that citizens are entitled to (see, among others, 1, 2). Confiscation of funds through third parties (especially banks) is perhaps the most common way of enforcing monetary claims, and is the least expensive.
Document 2/72297 / ΔΛΤΠ / 28-9-2021 of the Ministry of Finance (ΑΔΑ 68ΙΘΗ-Π3Υ) declared, however, that public holdings of both the central governmental administration and other government agencies in the banks of the country, “have been declared as serving specific special public purposes and are therefore exempt from seizure.”
In this way, virtually all the bank accounts of the state become exempt from seizure. This took place through the issuance of an administrative act in the form of a circular document, without mention of any relevant legislative authority or any explanation as to why this is occurring at this specific time even though these laws have been in existence for at least 7 years.
Viewing all public sector bank accounts as serving specific special public purposes places them outside of the laws applicable to private property and therefore exempts them from seizure following a court decision in favour of another party’s monetary claim (according to the provisions of Law 3068/2002). This disproportionately and excessively limits the ability of the citizen to proceed with enforcement (or even to exert pressure through the “threat” of enforcement) to collect his claims. This in turn makes it difficult to execute court decisions in an effective, efficient and timely manner. In this way, rights recognized by the Constitution and supra-legislative texts are violated, such as the provision of full and effective legal/judicial protection, (Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 20 of the Constitution) and that of property (Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Constitution); obligations of the state are ignored, such as the obligation of the public administration to comply with court decisions (Article 2, paragraph 3 in conjunction with Article 14 paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); the guarantees that should exist in the compliance of the administration and the effective execution of a court decision (Article 95, paragraph 5 of the Constitution) and the right of the citizen to carry out the execution of a court decision against the state (Article 94, paragraph 4 of the Constitution and Article 4 of law 3068/2002) as well as general principles such as that of proportionality (Article 25, paragraph 1 of the Constitution) and equality (Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution).
The Ministry of Finance explained that “… in the state budget, special credits are registered every year for the payment of the expenses that result from the issuance of final court decisions. These expenses are paid by the relevant services with the issuance of regular money orders,” and in this way the public service repays its obligations voluntarily (indirectly stating that there is no need for anyone to proceed with enforcement to collect their claims). But none of the above denies the essence of the issue. If the state indeed repaid what it owed in a timely and efficient manner, with no need for the citizen to proceed to enforcing a claim, there would consequently be no reason to declare the assets as exempt from seizure.
In conclusion, even before the issuance of this document, the possibility of enforcing a monetary claim against the state was already arduous and subject to various restrictions, placing the state in a privileged position to begin with. (See, among others, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) However, the privilege created by declaring all public sector bank accounts as exempt from seizure, without any distinction as to whether they contain public or private property of the public sector, can only be considered arbitrary and therefore a violation of the rule of law. For this reason, the Greek Bar Association made an announcement on 5/10/2021 expressing its strong opposition to document 2/72297 / DLPP / 28-9 -2021, with a further decision in a later plenary session requesting the document be revoked, and authorising the Coordinating Committee to file a lawsuit against it.
In a state that adheres to the rule of law, citizens are guaranteed the right to judicial protection and specifically the right to be able to enforce judicial decisions. The state is also expected to comply with decisions of the court.
However, with the Ministry of Finance’s decision to exempt all public sector bank accounts from seizure, additional and disproportionate obstacles are set for the citizen to receive from the state what has been legally awarded by a court decision. This violates many principles, obligations and rights that are analyzed in detail in the main text.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
