«According to Article 281 of the Civil Code, the exercise of a right such as that of termination of a contract is prohibited if it clearly exceeds the limits imposed by good faith or good morals or the social or economic purpose of the right, but only the fact that the exercise of the right in this case, it is harmful, even great, to the debtor, it is not enough to characterize his exercise as abusive, but it must be combined with other circumstances, as happens when the lender does not actually have an interest in the against the right.

In this context, the creditor, who by exercising his contractual right seeks to collect his claim, certainly acts to satisfy his legitimate interest, intertwined with the management of his property, the manner in which he freely decides in principle, unless again in this case there is an excess and even obvious of the principles of good faith, morality and the socio-economic purpose of the right (AP 1472/2004)

This is also the case when the borrower’s conduct prior to the exercise of his right, in conjunction with the actual situation formed in the interim, created in the debtor the reasonable belief that the lender would not exercise his right at the time he exercised it, resulting in its premature exercise causes burdensome consequences for the debtor and thus appears unjustified and abusive.

In particular, Banks, as financial institutions that have a decisive influence on growth, have increased responsibility in the exercise of their financial work and must take care of the interests of businesses and individuals who finance, since by its nature the credit relationship, as Permanent legal relationship of special trust between the parties, imposes the obligation of trust and protection on the part of the banks in the interests of their customers, in order to avoid overly burdensome  consequences.

Therefore, the exercise of their rights should be governed by the principles of good faith and compliance with good business ethics for the performance of due obligations (AK 178, 200, 288) and that any misconduct in their conduct should be avoided.

Thus, in case of difficulty of the Bank debtor to meet his obligations from the loan agreement due to his temporary financial weakness, which however exceeds the limits of his endurance, the bona fide behavior of the Bank imposes on this obligation to tolerate a reasonable delay in the fulfillment of the debtor’s benefit, especially when the pursuit of the immediate fulfillment of his debt is to lead to its complete financial ruin, without substantial profit for itself.

In this sense, the Bank should, in the event of a temporary financial weakness of its client, avoid the hasty termination of the loan agreement between them, especially when its claims are insured with real or personal insurance, and its customer is in direct financial security. dependence on it and it does not owe it to third parties, since then its above actions take on an abusive character «.

«According to what has been said before, it is considered that the defendant’s conduct in issuing the ordered payment order is abusive. This is because, in accordance with the above, which is set out in the Bank’s conduct, the interruptor was given the impression that she was not going to exercise her right, provided that, in accordance with the above, the bank through the added parties It first understood the financial problem of the defendant and began negotiations between the parties to settle the legal debt, in parallel with the payment of the above-mentioned amounts to the defendant by the defendant.

The subsequent issuance of the objection makes for the above reasons in view of the financial incapacity of the terminator unbearable her exercise in the legal and ethical perceptions of the average prudent social man, in accordance with the above and contrary to the principles of Article 281 of the Civil Code.

And although the defendant, by exercising its contractual right, seeks the collection of its claim and certainly acts to satisfy its legitimate interest, intertwined with the management of its property, but it is considered that in view of the large part of the amount due to the amount due to the deduction in conjunction with its systematic efforts to settle its debt,
in this case there is an obvious overstepping of the limits set out in the law. Consequently, on the merits of the first ground of appeal, it follows that the defendant has abusively issued the objection and must therefore accept the impugned objection and annul the order issued. “