Annulment of electronic auction following legal challenge due to a manifest error in the submission of a bid
In a recent decision, the Athens Court of First Instance upheld an application challenging acts of enforcement proceedings and annulled a forced auction report, finding that the adjudication of the property had been based on a manifest error during the submission of the financial bid by the highest bidder.
The decision was issued following an application filed by Papatriantafyllou & Thanasenari in the context of representing the bidder in the relevant judicial proceedings.
The ruling followed earlier court proceedings in which a suspension of the obligation to pay the auction price had been granted. The case highlights the importance of timely legal action in situations where the outcome of an auction procedure does not reflect the genuine intention of the participants.
Factual Background
The bidder participated in an electronic auction with the intention of acquiring a property. During the bidding process, a bid of €1,600,010 was mistakenly entered on the electronic platform instead of the intended amount of €160,010.
As a result, the property was awarded at a price significantly exceeding its market value.
Despite immediate objections and requests for correction submitted after the error was identified, the mistake was not rectified. Consequently, the bidder faced the risk of losing the guarantee deposit corresponding to 30% of the starting bid, as well as the possibility of being subject to enforcement measures for the excessively high adjudication price.
In order to protect the bidder’s rights, an application challenging the enforcement acts was filed, arguing that the adjudication had been based on a manifest error that did not reflect the bidder’s true intention.
The case was addressed through a combined procedural approach, involving an application for suspension and subsequently an application challenging the enforcement acts, in order to prevent the disproportionate financial consequences resulting from the erroneous adjudication of the property.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Court accepted the arguments raised and held that there had been a manifest and proven error in the submission of the bid, caused by an incorrect entry during the use of the electronic auction platform.
According to the Court, the submission of a bid amount that does not correspond to the bidder’s actual intention contravenes the principles of good faith and fair dealing, particularly in light of the evident disproportion between the submitted bid and the actual value of the property.
The Court emphasized that auction procedures must reflect the genuine economic intention of the participants and must be conducted in a manner that safeguards the substantive legality of the process.
On that basis, the Court upheld the application and annulled the forced auction report, concluding that the adjudication had been based on an error that materially distorted the outcome of the procedure.
Significance of the Decision
The decision is of particular interest for the practice of electronic auctions, as it demonstrates that even in fully automated procedures courts may examine the substantive legality of the process where circumstances arise that distort the genuine intention of the participants.
At the same time, the ruling confirms that applications challenging enforcement acts constitute a critical legal remedy for the protection of the rights of parties involved in enforcement proceedings.
The case also illustrates the importance of timely and targeted legal action, both at the stage of seeking suspension and at the stage of challenging enforcement acts.
Related topics: