What is “Individual debt notice” and what are the legal consequences of non-infringement by the debtor?

In recent weeks, IKA’s KEAO, the Tax Office and other public services have been sending a simple mail to their debtors, a document they call «individual debt notice». This document seems like a simple public notice calling on the debtor within 20 days of receipt, to settle his debt in 12 monthly instalments; otherwise the enforcement will begin to collect the debt.

This document does not mention anywhere the legal aids and the deadline for the debtor to exercise them, as in all other public documents.

But what is this document and what are the legal consequences of its non-infringement by the debtor?

According to the new provisions of KEDE, the individual debt notice is a valid enforceable title, and marks the beginning of the compulsory execution for the collection of the debt, ie the seizure of mobile phones, bank accounts, third party or real estate auctions.

Individual notices are received by employers who have fines from undeclared work, insured persons who have received unduly paid pensions, allowances, etc., VAT debtors and other debts to the tax authorities, etc.

It doesn’t matter if there is an objection or a request for treatment. Even if an objection has been lodged with the competent administrative committee, the KEAO sends the individual notices. That is, the government seeks to collect the debts before judging whether the debt is in fact legal or not.

The employees of KEAO support and call on the debtors to settle their debt even if they have filed an objection, arguing that if the debtors are justified they will get their money back from the State (???).

The regulation, especially in large amounts, is completely unrealistic and impossible. However, the debtor has no choice but to settle as he is threatened with the consequences of enforcement and in addition the amount due is charged with interest and surcharges each month.

In essence, this is a without cause strict tactic of the state, completely unconstitutional, as it violates every sense of law and protection of the citizen, violates fundamental rights and principles of law, violates the right to a fair trial and a fair trial.

How can the debtor react in this case at any time? Can they defend themselves or do they need to succumb to the severe tactic of the state, under the threat of disposing or auctioning off its property?

The debtor can defend himself against individual notice and impending enforcement, provided that he acts immediately.

Against the individual notice, the law provides that the appeal may be lodged. With the opposition, the title of the enforcement is challenged, ie the individual notice and if an objection has been filed which has not been discussed, then reasons on the substance of the debt may be raised.

That is, if an objection has been lodged and has not yet been discussed, or an appeal has also not been lodged, an objection must still be lodged in order to stop the enforcement. In fact, it is not the opposition that will stop the execution, but the suspension that will be imposed on it.

That is, the first step is to lodge an objection against the individual notice and on the objection we must also apply for a suspension, which, if accepted, will terminate the enforcement until the decision of the opposition is issued.

The opposition is exercised within 20 days from the receipt of the individual notice and the suspension within 3 days from the exercise of the opposition. The law does not explicitly define the time limit for lodging an objection and considers that this time limit expires at the commencement of enforcement. In practice, however, to be sure that our objection will be timely, it is advisable to exercise as soon as possible, especially within the 20-day deadline set for the settlement.

Note that the suspension is adjudicated immediately, while the opposition is tried after 3-4 years.

Many will wonder if it is worthwhile to get involved in this process, instead of going to pay the debt with the settlement.

No one can answer yes or no to this question. But I will put 2-3 points in mind so that everyone can judge if it is worth it.

KEAO, like other public services, is betting on the fact that out of the 10 individual notifications that will be sent, 2 or 3 will look further with a lawyer on how to defend themselves. Of the other two, they will go directly to regulate and the others, either out of ignorance or fear, will ignore it, throw it away, forget it, and so on.

So the state will have achieved 2 regulations and in the rest it will charge surcharges and interest, will increase the amount due to not negligible amount and then will try through the execution either to pinch money from accounts, salaries or pensions, or to blackmail most again it will pinch a new setting or payment. In the meantime, they will have lost any time to defend themselves in court and stop the execution against them, so they will be brought to justice.

On the other hand, the two who have filed the objection are likely to have their debt completely written off. This is because, if they are unduly paid, there is a fixed case law of the courts, which stipulates certain conditions that make their payment legal. In most cases these conditions are not met, so the search for the debt is illegal and abusive and the court considers that the insured must not pay anything.

Something similar applies to the fines of SEPE or VAT. Decisions must meet the formal requirements of the law, be reasoned, comply with the principle of the previous hearing, etc. A well-founded objection may exempt the debtor from the fine or a large part of it. It should be noted that when it is discussed after 3-4 years, other provisions may apply, more favorable, which can be invoked.

In any case, it would be a good idea to consult a lawyer to see how you can move and what is best for you so that you do not lose your rights.

Source: site lawspot.gr