For a year he fought to have his name removed from the list, with his efforts falling on deaf ears. Finally, he turned to the Justice which vindicated him by awarding him compensation of 7,000 euros, with the Single Member Court of Appeal of Athens recognizing the bank’s responsibility due to illegal and culpable insult to personality and violation of personal data of its client.
It was the beginning of May 2018 when the judicial officer who serves in an administrative court of first instance, to his great surprise, received a letter from a bank, specifically from the Arrears Monitoring Directorate, with which it “reminded” him that he had allegedly delayed the payment of a debt claim from a loan to which had entered as guarantor.
Surprised, the court official, since he had never drawn up any contract with the particular bank, but only kept a simple deposit account, rushed to a branch to ask for an explanation regarding his presentation as a borrower, even classified as “non-cooperative”.
As he describes in his lawsuit, the employee initially did not give him any answer. However, some time later, the first judge, due to another transaction he attempted with another credit institution, discovered that his details had been registered with TEIRESIA. Then, “the same employee of the bank, after investigating his complaints, informed him that he is not a debtor of the bank and provided him with a letter signed by the same, in which it is stated that: you have not signed as a guarantor in no. …/2003 open mutual account agreement in the name of …’. That (…) is his brother, who had never asked him to sign as a guarantor in the above credit agreement through an open overdraft account”.
Although it was the bank’s mistake, the employee did not ensure that the plaintiff was deleted from the TEIRESIA system, but obliged him to take the necessary related actions himself. In fact, according to what he states in his lawsuit, on May 11 of the same year, the judge submitted an application to the anonymous company under the name “BANKING INFORMATION SYSTEMS TEIRESIAS S.A.”, “but he was informed by the competent employees of the latter that On the one hand, the procedure was not the correct one, and on the other hand, the content of the above letter from 4.5.2018 was insufficient for the requested deletion, a fact which the defendant anonymous banking company was certainly aware of in the context of its normal operation”.
“Golgothas” continued after the first party was forced to turn to a lawyer and submit an application to the bank requesting the immediate and by its own actions to delete it from TEIRESIA, while he submitted a second application to the branch, with which he requested the granting of copies of all loan contracts of any kind.
The bank ignored the judge once again. On June 20th he received a second letter, informing him that he was now classified as a “non-cooperative borrower” and that the bank now had the right to terminate the contracts from which his alleged debt arose!
Immediately, the judge sent an extrajudicial letter to the bank and strongly protested the spread of inaccurate news about him, asking for the immediate restoration of the truth while simultaneously erasing any record of keeping unfavorable information regarding his transactional reliability.
After several out-of-court actions against the bank, TEIRESIA, as well as a complaint to the Consumer Ombudsman, a year later his lawyer received an invitation to go to the bank’s branch, in order to “close the case”. The judge appealed to the Court for an insult to his personality and moral damage, for the restoration of which he is entitled to the amount of 100,000 euros as monetary satisfaction and in addition the amount of 20,000 euros as monetary satisfaction due to moral damage due to the violation of his personal data against the provisions.
Accidental mistake…
For its part, the bank spoke of an oversight, argued that the non-deletion of the first instance is due to reasons related to the internal functioning of TEIRESIA, which should have addressed the bank, while denying his claims of property and moral damage saying, among other things, that ” no adverse change occurred in his professional-service situation as an active judicial officer due to the submission by him of an inaccurate statement of financial status”.
According to the reasoning of the judges, the bank’s responsibilities are reflected since the judge had been registered in the bank’s default system, without being notified, while they then transferred his details to TEIRESIA, omitting the required prior special information.
#entered #Teiresias #owing #single #euro
