30 May 2022 INSIDER • GOAL • IN-CYPRUS • PROPERTY • CYPRUS-IS • CAREER LIKE • GOING OUT • XRYSES SYNTAGES • ACTIVE • PHILGROUP NEWS & nbsp; SOCIETY & nbsp; INSIDER & nbsp; OPINIONS & nbsp; GOING OUT & nbsp; CULTURE & nbsp; SPORTS & nbsp; AUTO & nbsp; GOOD LIFE & nbsp; USEFUL & nbsp; PRINTED EDITION & nbsp;
ΑΡΧΙΚΗΕΙΔΗΣΕΙΣΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗΤΟΠΙΚΑΠΑΡΑΣΚΗΝΙΟMEDIAΕΛΛΑΔΑΚΟΣΜΟΣΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΚΕΣ 2023ΤΕΧΝΟΛΟΓΙΑΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣΧΡΥΣΕΣ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΕΣΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΕΙΔΗΣΕΙΣΚΥΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΧΘΕΣΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗ ΕΧΕΙΣ ΛΟΓΟΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΕΣΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣΔΗΜΟΦΙΛΗ ΣΤΟ INTERNETVIDEOSΑΦΙΕΡΩΜΑΤΑADVERTORIALINSIDERΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΙΣΚΥΠΡΟΣBRAND VOICECAPITALFORBESBLOOMBERG OPINIONΠΡΩΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΕΣΚΑΥΤΗ ΓΡΑΜΜΗΧΡΥΣΕΣ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΕΣΚΑΡΙΕΡΑΑΠΟΨΕΙΣΑΡΘΡΑ ΣΤΟΝ “Φ”ΠΑΡΕΜΒΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΝ “Φ”ΤΟ ΜΗΝΥΜΑ ΣΟΥ ΣΚΙΤΣΑΟ ΚΟΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ TWITTERGOING OUTTHINGS TO DOCINEMAΜΟΥΣΙΚΗΕΣΤΙΑΤΟΡΙΑBAR/CAFETV ΟΔΗΓΟΣΤΗΛΕΟΡΑΣΗΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣΚΥΠΡΟΣΚΟΣΜΟΣΚΡΙΤΙΚΕΣΕΚΔΗΛΩΣΕΙΣΠΡΟΣΩΠΑΑΘΛΗΤΙΚΑΠΟΔΟΣΦΑΙΡΟΜΠΑΣΚΕΤΠΑΡΑΣΚΗΝΙΑΕΛΛΑΔΑΔΙΕΘΝΗΑΛΛΑ ΣΠΟΡΑΠΟΨΕΙΣΣΚΙΤΣΟVIDEOSAUTOΝΕΑΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΗΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΕΣΑΓΩΝΕΣΚΑΛΗ ΖΩΗΥΓΕΙΑΔΙΑΤΡΟΦΗΕΥ ΖΗΝΑΣΤΡΑΧΡΥΣΕΣ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΕΣΣΥΝΤΑΓΕΣ ΣΕΦΒΗΜΑ ΒΗΜΑΧΡΗΣΙΜΑΦΑΡΜΑΚΕΙΑΓΙΑΤΡΟΙΑΕΡΟΔΡΟΜΙΑΛΙΜΑΝΙΑΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΑΟΠΑΠΚΑΙΡΟΣΣΥΝΑΛΛΑΓΜΑΛΑΧΕΙΑAPPSΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΕΣΕΝΤΥΠΗ ΕΚΔΟΣΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗΤΟΠΙΚΑΠΑΡΑΣΚΗΝΙΟMEDIAΕΛΛΑΔΑΚΟΣΜΟΣΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΚΕΣ 2023ΤΕΧΝΟΛΟΓΙΑΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣΧΡΥΣΕΣ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΕΣ ΕΙΔΗΣΕΙΣΚΥΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΧΘΕΣΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗ ΕΧΕΙΣ ΛΟΓΟΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΕΣΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣΔΗΜΟΦΙΛΗΣΤΟ INTERNETVIDEOSΑΦΙΕΡΩΜΑΤΑADVERTORIAL ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΙΣΚΥΠΡΟΣBRAND VOICECAPITALFORBESBLOOMBERG OPINIONΠΡΩΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΕΣΚΑΥΤΗ ΓΡΑΜΜΗΧΡΥΣΕΣ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΕΣΚΑΡΙΕΡΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ ΣΤΟΝ “Φ”ΠΑΡΕΜΒΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΝ “Φ”ΤΟ ΜΗΝΥΜΑ ΣΟΥ ΣΚΙΤΣΑΟ ΚΟΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ TWITTER THINGS TO DOCINEMAΜΟΥΣΙΚΗΕΣΤΙΑΤΟΡΙΑBAR/CAFETV ΟΔΗΓΟΣΤΗΛΕΟΡΑΣΗ ΚΥΠΡΟΣΚΟΣΜΟΣΚΡΙΤΙΚΕΣΕΚΔΗΛΩΣΕΙΣΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ ΠΟΔΟΣΦΑΙΡΟΜΠΑΣΚΕΤΠΑΡΑΣΚΗΝΙΑΕΛΛΑΔΑΔΙΕΘΝΗΑΛΛΑ ΣΠΟΡΑΠΟΨΕΙΣΣΚΙΤΣΟVIDEOS ΝΕΑΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΗΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΕΣΑΓΩΝΕΣ ΥΓΕΙΑΔΙΑΤΡΟΦΗΕΥ ΖΗΝΑΣΤΡΑΧΡΥΣΕΣ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΕΣΣΥΝΤΑΓΕΣ ΣΕΦΒΗΜΑ ΒΗΜΑ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΕΙΑΓΙΑΤΡΟΙΑΕΡΟΔΡΟΜΙΑΛΙΜΑΝΙΑΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΑΟΠΑΠΚΑΙΡΟΣΣΥΝΑΛΛΑΓΜΑΛΑΧΕΙΑAPPSΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΕΣ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΙΣ ΚΥΠΡΟΣ BRAND VOICE CAPITAL FORBES BLOOMBERG OPINION ΠΡΩΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΕΣ ΚΑΥΤΗ LINE GOLDEN COMPANIES CAREER
Next Previous Exemption of a person with a mental disability from loans with a former SEA HOME • INSIDER • CYPRUS • Exemption of a person with a mental disability from loans with a former SEA
The exemption of a person with mental disability from the loans he concluded with a former SEA, was decided by the Financial Commissioner Pavlos Ioannou, with a final decision dated 26 May. According to a memo, the complaint was filed by an authorized representative of a person with a fully established mental disability. which have now been transferred to KEDIPES.
With an interim decision on November 18, 2021, the Commissioner called on KEDIPES “to proceed immediately and without any further delay to the cancellation” of a planned & nbsp; sale process in a final and irrevocable manner. & Nbsp; KEDIPES complied and canceled the auction process, it is added.
In the conclusions of his final decision, issued on 26 May 2022, & nbsp; the Commissioner calls on KEDIPES to & nbsp; . Apparently, because of this, he notes, all the mortgaged properties of the Complainant are exempted, which secures the disputed loans.
According to medical certificates, it appears that the complainant & nbsp; had already been diagnosed since 1979, as a person with a low level of intelligence, says the Commissioner. Therefore, both when applying for and signing the loan agreements in question and after they were granted, he was not able to understand what he was signing and did not have or has the ability to repay the loans in question. That is why no installment payment has been observed so far, he reports. In addition, a certificate & nbsp; dated 23/04/2018, demonstrates the validation of the registration of the complainant in the Register B of the Committee for the Protection of Persons with Mental Disabilities, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities of 1989.
From this, according to the Commissioner, & nbsp; it is clear that the Complainant did not have the capacity to contract legally, because he does not meet the requirements of Articles 11 and 12 of Chapter 149. Article 12 of Chapter 149, which is absolutely on the interpretation of the term “party who has the brakes”, states that the party at the time of its training, has the brakes, if he can perceive it and form a reasonable judgment about its consequences on his interests . Otherwise, as is the case here, he is not in a position to enter into a legal contract. , to take no action to address the serial delays in repaying loans, raises, unquestionably, many questions. From a simple examination of the account statements of the loans in question, it was found that no installment was ever paid by the Complainant, in either of the two loans.
Therefore, the responsibilities of API, moral, civil and others, are enormous, he concludes. “These are responsibilities, both to the complainant and to the Co-operation, and consequently to the State, due to the consequent damages caused by the loan in question and will be caused by the inevitable write-off of the loans in question,” said Mr. Ioannou, adding that the Report of the Research Committee for the Collapse of the Cooperative Credit System of Cyprus, chaired by & nbsp; Mr. & nbsp; Giorgos Arestis.
In addition, & nbsp; on the part of SPE Strovolos, they do not seem to have carried out the necessary control and/or to have acted with due diligence, during the examination of the application for both loans and/or after their granting, the Commissioner concludes. Nor did they take the necessary steps, as they should, to protect the complainant, as a person with a mental disability. Consequently, they violated both the provisions of Chapter 149 and the relevant provisions of the Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities of 1989.
However, a possible allegation by KEDIPES that it was unaware of its situation complainant, does not seem to affect the outcome of the final decision, as & nbsp; the complainant had and still has serious mental problems, according to the unshakable & nbsp; data and testimonies before the Commissioner.
Regarding the & nbsp; allegation that the complainant never reaped the disbursed sums due to his situation, the Commissioner states that the complainant appears to have been exploited by third parties, not only motivated to enter into a contract with the API, but apparently always according to the relevant claim, that these individuals reaped the said sums. “Consequently, both the granting of the loans in question and their subsequent handling conflict with any banking logic and practice and are in complete contradiction with any rational meaning of a legally granted loan,” he concludes.
Mr. Ioannou states that he forwarded the case to the Attorney General, & nbsp; on the basis of Article 27 (1) of the Law, which provides that the Financial Commissioner “sends the cases for which a criminal offense may have been committed and the cases may be in the public interest of the Attorney General of the Republic “. In addition, he informed the Minister of Finance about his actions, because KEDIPES, against which the complaint is directed, is an entity controlled, in essence, by the State, as the & nbsp; complainant is a person with a mental disability, and therefore are protected and regulated by the 1989 Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities, which also defines the responsibilities of the State towards it.
Finally, the Commissioner emphasizes that “it is & nbsp; an insurmountable need, in order to restore the legality and to effectively implement the Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities of 1989, as KEDIPES proceeded immediately to exempt the Complainant from any claim in relation to the loans in question, deleting, in full and in full, any liability that may arise from them, including the cancellation of all relevant mortgages for these loans. It is necessary for the State to take care in this direction. “
notes that the issuance of the final decision on the case was based solely on & nbsp; evidence before it, as, & nbsp; despite its repeated appeals to KEDIPES for further clarification, the entity did not respond as it should. “This omission is a heinous crime, as defined in article 26 of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Unified Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution Body of 2010”, he notes.