Opposition against payment order from an open overdraft account/ contribution of law no. 128/1975
In the present case, in their present opposition, the opposing parties request the annulment, otherwise be reformed, for the reasons specifically set out, the Payment Order No. 21/21 IT / 15-02-2012 of the Judge of the Samos Court of First Instance, who ordered them to pay to the defendant, jointly and severally each one, the sum of EUR 38,793.08, together with interest and legal costs, for a claim arising from a credit agreement with an open overdraft.
However, charging the amount of € 220.40 included in this particular account and concerns a new investigation of the property of the opposing company on 17-08-2011, has not been recognized and is legally challenged by it. Moreover since no evidence has proved the need for new research of real estate of the opponent’s company by the bank attorney nor the calculation of the fee nor the obligation of the opponent’s company to incur the same amount of this fee when in fact, research this is done at the initiative of the bank. Finally, it is proved that from the date of recognition of the balance of each held account (01-07-2011) until 30-12-2011, the law of Law no 128/1975 was imposed on the opposing company, namely for the first account on 30- 09-2011 and 30-11-2011 was charged the opponent with the amount of 28,20 Euros each time, as well as for the other account on 30-09-2011 and 30-11-2011 was charged the counterparty with the amount of 29.21 Euros each time. There is no evidence to show that the contract in question contains a condition for the borrowing company’s contribution to the levy of Law 128/1975, as well as the percentage thereof. The extract from the commercial records brought to the attention of the court which issued the contested order for payment in order to prove the claim under the credit agreement shows that the defendant capitalized the contribution of Law 128/1975 whenever he charged interest of any kind, and this was done at a quarterly frequency, and the amounts were reversed; after each deduction, the resulting capital calculated interest and interest payments of Law 128/1975, in the new capital and the resulting capital calculated new interest (levy and interest rate). This unlawful interest is charged and compounded by incorporating it into the interest rate on all interest. Thus, in respect of the amount of the claim for which the order for payment was issued, it is not apparent from the extracts from the bank account of the defendant which were produced the entire debt due to the nullity of the amount of the contribution 128/1975 and their compounding, both the nullity of the individual amounts (levy Law 128/1975) and the payment of unnecessary amounts (control of property) affect the documentary evidence but also the liquidation of the total amount of the claim in the excerpt of the book trade.