In this case, the applicant is bringing in a motion for stay of the enforcement of the proceedings of a payment order, which is tried consolidated with a protestation and its supplemental pleadings. The first reason of protestation proposed is rejected. According to it, the applicant’s gratification inability is caused by the defendant’s (Eurobank) negligence or malice. It has nevertheless been proved that the defendant didn’t act unconventionally, against commercial usage and the usual bank’s practice, when denied granting the rest of credit to the applicant. The second reason of protestation proposed is also rejected. According to it, the expressed in the agreement between the applicant and the defendant general term of a contract about automated agreement’s reversal under specific circumstances, is abusive. It seems though that the law gives this right to the defendant (bank), and that the one also terminated the agreement due to the subscription of important reason and after the chance was given to the applicant, so as its debt can me arranged by concluding the reclamation agreement. The third reason of protestation proposed by the second applicant (guarantor) is rejected as indefinite. The fourth reason of protestation proposed also by the guarantor is similar to the first one and is rejected. More specifically, he claimed that the agreement’s term about his relinquishment of privilege of discussion included in this contract, and of his legal right to propose principal debtor’s objections. The supplemental pleading of protestation proposed, is finally rejected as inadmissible because it refers to a fact that took place after payment order’s issue. As a result, this apply is rejected as no protestation reason has been accepted.