{"id":3846,"date":"2025-03-19T14:48:05","date_gmt":"2025-03-19T11:48:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pathlawfirm.gr\/en\/?p=3846"},"modified":"2025-08-29T11:08:30","modified_gmt":"2025-08-29T08:08:30","slug":"conservatory-attachment-of-bank-accounts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pathlawfirm.gr\/en\/conservatory-attachment-of-bank-accounts\/","title":{"rendered":"Conservatory Attachment of Bank Accounts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Rejection of Application for Conservatory Attachment \u2013 Freezing of Bank Accounts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Papatriantafyllou & Thanasenari achieved a significant legal victory, successfully preventing the unjust conservatory attachment of its client’s bank bank accounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court fully rejected<\/strong> the opposing party\u2019s request to freeze all of our client\u2019s bank accounts for an amount of \u20ac800,000<\/strong>. Similarly, it dismissed the request for access to transaction records related to the movement of these accounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The opposing party, acting as a bankruptcy trustee, sought to freeze our client\u2019s bank accounts, claiming that the amount of \u20ac800,000<\/strong> originated from the sale of a vessel, which, according to their allegations, belonged to the bankrupt company\u2019s assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Facts of the Case:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The bankrupt company had paid \u20ac1,100,000<\/strong> to acquire a single-ship company that owned the disputed vessel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the bankruptcy declaration, the trustee filed a lawsuit seeking to transfer ownership of the vessel to the bankrupt company. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, before the bankruptcy, a contractual agreement had already been made between the single-ship company and a foreign company for the vessel\u2019s sale for \u20ac800,000<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This amount was deposited into our client\u2019s bank accounts, while the actual transfer of ownership occurred after the bankruptcy declaration<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Believing that this \u20ac800,000<\/strong> should be part of the bankruptcy estate, the trustee filed an application for interim measures, seeking to freeze our client\u2019s bank accounts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First Court Decision: Rejection of the Attachment Request<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Initially, the opposing party filed an application before the First Instance Court<\/strong> against the single-ship company, the foreign acquiring company, and our client, requesting, among other measures, the conservatory attachment of our client\u2019s bank accounts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its ruling, the Court recognized that the vessel was part of the bankruptcy estate<\/strong>. However, it entirely dismissed the trustee\u2019s request<\/strong> to freeze our client\u2019s bank accounts as unfounded<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second Court Decision: Dismissal of a New Attachment Request<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Following this decision, the opposing party submitted a new<\/strong> application for interim measures against our client and a banking institution, arguing that new evidence and changed circumstances<\/strong> justified a reconsideration. Specifically, they requested:<\/p>\n\n\n\n