Due to a recent article that refers to a decision of the High Court regarding the timesharing of "Porto Carras Grand Resort", the TECHNICAL OLYMPIC Group of Companies, owner of the above tourist resort, discloses the following: With 4 prior decisions the High Court has judged that, if a company that operates a hotel offering timesharing products is set under a special liquidation process and an auction follows, the timesharing contracts do not bind the new owner of the hotel. The timesharing holders may in this case be recompensed from the liquidation proceeds.
The above legal and fair resolution also certified the recent decision of the of the 2006 Plenum of the High Court that agreed in the previous 4 decisions.
The TECHNICAL OLYMPIC Group of Companies, in an auction after a special liquidation, paid to the Group of the NATIONAL BANK, for the purchase of Porto Carras, thirty three billion drachmas. It obtained the resort free of obligations, for immediate operation and purged the business assuring more than 1.000 jobs. It would be irrational to be obliged to wait up to sixty years (!) in order to be able to manage the hotel. It therefore rightly came to its own and by the Plenum as well, as it had also come to its own by the 4 previous decisions of the High Court. Almost 70 of the timesharing holders claimed that the Group should not have expelled from the apartments, although the law permits it, because the action constitutes "abuse of right". The Court of Appeals did not examine this claim for juridical reasons. The High Court brings again the case to the Court of Appeals in order the issue "abuse of right" to be examined in essence, without meaning that this forejudges that the claims of the 70 timesharing holders will be accepted. Furthermore, we remark the following:
a- The Plenum of the High Court does not reverse the decisions of the Courts of Appeals and the previous ones of the High Court, that accepted that the timesharing contracts do not apply in the case of a special liquidation, but on the contrary verifies them.
b- The High Court does not take a position to the matter, even if the expulsion of the 70 timesharing holders has been done improperly. It just refers the matter to the Court of Appeals.
c-The matter if there is an abuse of right refers only to the 70 timesharing holders that have timely filed a case for the proceedings and not for all of them.
d-The Group has not collected any funds from any timesharing holder. Funds paid by the timesharing holders, have been paid to the previous proprietors and can be reclaimed for the special liquidation. The Technical Olympic Group of Companies repeats that the publishing of wrong conclusions is not for anyone's benefit.