Private Sale of Real Estate as a Strategic Alternative to Public Auction
In recent years, enforcement proceedings against real estate in Greece have become almost exclusively associated with electronic auctions. In both public discourse and day-to-day practice, the liquidation of immovable property is often perceived as a standardized and time-consuming process that does not always reflect the asset’s true commercial value.
Following the amendment of Article 998(6) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (GCCP), the private sale of seized real estate prior to auction has been reinstated as a structured enforcement mechanism. When properly utilized, it may constitute a meaningful alternative in cases where an auction is delayed, proves unsuccessful, or risks depreciating the asset.
In her recent publication entitled “The Reintroduction of Private Sale of Real Estate – A Substantive Alternative to Auction,” published on LawNet, Partner Elli Thanasenari analyses the scope and practical significance of this mechanism within the modern Greek enforcement framework.
The article examines:
- The legal nature of private sale under enforcement law
- The procedural requirements of Article 998(6) GCCP
- The legal consequences for debtors and creditors
- The practical implications of its application in contemporary enforcement practice
What Article 998(6) GCCP Provides
Under Article 998(6) GCCP, upon application by the debtor, the competent enforcement court (as designated under Article 933 GCCP), adjudicating under interim measures proceedings, may authorize the sale of the seized property to a specifically proposed purchaser.
The purchase price:
- Is determined by the court
- May not be lower than 70% of the starting bid set for the auction
- Must be paid in full upon completion of the sale
The sale is conducted by the auction officer and must be finalized no later than ten days prior to the scheduled auction date. If the transaction is not completed within this timeframe, the auction proceeds as originally scheduled.
Unlike the private sale mechanism provided under Article 966 GCCP, which presupposes two unsuccessful auctions, Article 998(6) permits intervention at an earlier stage, before the property is exposed to public bidding.
Not a Voluntary Disposal, but a Judicially Controlled Enforcement Act
Despite the term “private,” this mechanism does not constitute a voluntary or out-of-court sale. It forms an integral part of the enforcement process, subject to judicial control and executed through an official enforcement organ.
The purchase price is legally equated to auction proceeds. Upon completion of the process:
- Secured interests over the property are extinguished
- The proceeds are distributed among creditors according to statutory ranking rules
- Any challenge may be brought only through an enforcement opposition under Article 933 GCCP
This institutional framework ensures legal certainty for creditors and purchasers alike. The buyer is placed in a position equivalent to that of a successful auction bidder.
Who May Benefit from Private Sale Under Article 998(6)
The provision applies to both individuals and corporate debtors, as well as to third parties seeking to acquire property through a court-supervised procedure with the legal effects of auction.
In particular, the mechanism is relevant to:
- Companies and corporate entities facing enforcement measures and seeking a controlled and economically rational liquidation of real estate assets
- Private individuals wishing to avoid disposal of property at potentially undervalued auction prices
- Investors and prospective purchasers seeking acquisition through a legally safeguarded process
In many cases, the choice between auction and private sale is not merely procedural. It constitutes a strategic decision affecting:
- The financial position of the debtor
- The timing of creditor satisfaction
- The preservation of the property’s commercial value
- Overall risk allocation
Early and specialized legal assessment is therefore critical in determining whether Article 998(6) provides a viable and strategically advantageous option in a given case.
The Strategic Dimension of Enforcement Proceedings
At Papatriantafyllou & Thanasenari Law Firm, enforcement matters — including auctions, creditor actions and private sale mechanisms — are not treated as routine procedural events, but as cases of substantial financial and legal importance.
A combined evaluation of:
- Procedural options
- Actual market valuation
- Litigation and enforcement risks
- The strategic position of debtors and creditors
may materially alter the outcome of the process.
Publication & Institutional Recognition
The publication of Elli Thanasenari’s article on LawNet further strengthens the firm’s institutional and academic presence in the field of enforcement and real estate litigation, reaffirming its ongoing engagement with complex procedural matters of significant economic impact.
You can read Elli Thanassenari’s full article (in Greek) in LawNet HERE.
See also other articles by Elli Thanasenari:
- Legal Due Diligence Prior to the Acquisition of Real Estate: The 7 Critical Stages (Elli Thanasenari, NB Daily)
- Papatriantafyllou & Thanasenari featured in The Legal Side of Business by To Vima – The strategic role of Business Litigation in commercial disputes
- Νew Publication by Elli Thanasenari: Legitimate Interest in Filing a Third-Party Opposition (Tritanakopi)
- New Publication: Partner Elli Thanassenari on Share Transfer Due to Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Civil Law & Civil Procedure Law Magazine features an Article written by Elli Thanasenari
Disclaimer: This publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional legal guidance should always be sought before acting on any information contained herein.