Disagreements within an apartment building and disputes between co-owners themselves or with the building manager are resolved by the locally competent Single-Member Courts of First Instance, following a lawsuit filed by the interested parties. Such disputes typically include disagreements over parking spaces, the occupation of common areas, contributions to shared expenses, the manager’s accountability, etc. However, disputes specifically concerning unpaid common expenses for amounts up to EUR 20,000 are resolved by the locally competent Magistrate’s Courts. This makes the procedure for recovering amounts owed to apartment building managers faster and more cost-effective.
Claims of building managers for unpaid common expenses are subject to a five-year limitation period. In every such case, it is necessary that a general assembly of co-owners has previously been convened with the agenda of taking measures against those refusing to pay, accompanied by an express mandate to the manager to initiate judicial action against them. In order for the manager to be able to judicially pursue the building’s claims, the minutes of his lawful election by the general assembly of co-owners are also always required.
WHAT OPTIONS DO CO-OWNERS HAVE AGAINST A TENANT’S BREACH OF THE BUILDING REGULATION?
The regulation of the legal relations between co-owners of an apartment building remains, to this day, an area of intense disputes and lengthy litigation before civil and criminal courts. Within the framework of drafting and signing the Building Regulation, which has the force of law for the relations between co-owners, restrictions and prohibitions concerning the uses of the individual horizontal properties may validly be agreed, while rights and obligations between the co-owners are specified. The content of the Regulation, with regard to the agreed or prohibited use, may take the form of: (a) an express prohibition of a specific use, (b) a provision that the horizontal properties are to be used for a specific purpose (e.g. residential), and (c) a general prohibition of any use which entails, among other things, the creation of excessive noise, pollution or unpleasant odours. The analysis and distinction of the options available to co-owners to seek legal protection, depending on whether the Regulation is breached by another co-owner or by a tenant, is of particular interest.
On the one hand, when the breach of the Regulation is causally linked to the conduct of another co-owner, the latter may be sued by the other co-owners of horizontal properties in the same apartment building, or by the building manager, with a request corresponding to the act or omission constituting the alleged breach of the building Regulation, in accordance with Article 17 no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD).
On the other hand, it is clear that the tenant of a horizontal property, even if he accepted the Regulation through the lease agreement, cannot be sued, in case of breach, by the other (non-lessor) co-owners of horizontal properties in the same apartment building, or by the building manager, under Article 17 no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD), because, according to the express provision of that rule, this procedure applies only where the dispute arising from the horizontal property relationship has arisen between co-owners or between managers and horizontal property owners.
In view of the above, it is clarified that, in the event of a breach of the Regulation by a third party, such as a tenant, the co-owners have the following two options:
(a) to bring proceedings against the lessor – co-owner by way of a lawsuit before the Single-Member Court of First Instance, or by way of an application for interim measures where the relevant conditions are met (imminent danger – urgency), and to demand that he cease, or temporarily cease, the breach of the Regulation being committed through his tenant, within the framework of Article 17 no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD); or (and)
(b) to bring proceedings against the tenant by way of an ordinary in rem action for removal from their quasi-possession (arising from the infringement of their right deriving from the restriction on ownership set out in the Regulation, which “has the character of a servitude”) before the court having subject-matter jurisdiction (after assessment of the value of the quasi-possession infringed), or, if the conditions for interim measures are met (imminent danger – urgency), before the locally competent Magistrate’s Court, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 996, 989 et seq. of the Civil Code (AK) and 733 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD) (see Areios Pagos 819/2000, Patras Single-Member Court of First Instance 1305/2012, Rhodes Single-Member Court of First Instance 224/2021, NOMOS legal database).
- See also article Property Purchase
- See also article Property Sale
- See also article Action for Partition of Property
- See also article SYPOTHA – Unauthorized Constructions
- See also article Fines for Unauthorized Constructions
- See also article Annulment of SYPOTHA Decision
- See also article Acquisitive Prescription
- See also article What is the KAEK?
- See also article Pre-notation of Mortgage
- See also article Tenant Eviction
- See also article Commercial-Professional Leases
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON APARTMENT BUILDING DISPUTES – DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN CO-OWNERS
1. What types of disputes can arise between co-owners of an apartment building?
The most common disputes concern parking spaces, the occupation of common areas, contributions to shared expenses, the manager’s accountability, as well as breaches of the building Regulation through disturbing uses, noise or unpleasant odours. Disputes also frequently arise over a change in the use of a horizontal property, when the Regulation provides exclusively for residential use and a co-owner or tenant converts it into professional premises. The Regulation has the force of law between the co-owners, and any breach gives rise to a right of judicial protection for the affected owners, enabling them to seek the cessation of the unlawful conduct and damages for any losses suffered.
2. What can I do if a tenant of an apartment is breaching the Regulation?
The tenant cannot be sued directly by the other co-owners under the procedure of Article 17 no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD), as that procedure applies only to disputes between co-owners or with the manager. The affected parties have two options: either to bring a lawsuit against the lessor – co-owner before the Single-Member Court of First Instance, seeking the cessation of the breach being committed through his tenant, or to proceed directly against the tenant by way of an in rem action for removal from quasi-possession. In urgent cases (severe nuisance, public-health risk), an application for interim measures is filed for the immediate cessation of the breach.
3. How does the manager judicially recover unpaid common expenses?
To take judicial action, the manager requires a decision of the general assembly of co-owners with an express mandate to initiate judicial proceedings against the debtors, as well as the minutes of his lawful election. A lawsuit is then filed, or an application is submitted for the issuance of a payment order, provided that the debt is evidenced by documents (financial statements, expense receipts, statements of common expenses). The payment order is a faster and more cost-effective solution, as it is issued without an oral hearing and immediately allows for measures of compulsory enforcement. Claims for unpaid common expenses are subject to a five-year limitation period, so timely action is required.
4. How long does such a judicial procedure last?
Interim measures proceedings are usually completed within one to three months from filing and are appropriate where there is imminent danger or urgency. An ordinary lawsuit before the Single-Member Court of First Instance is generally heard within one to two years, depending on the workload of the relevant court. For a payment order regarding common expenses, the time required for issuance ranges from a few weeks to two months. If the debtor files an opposition, the hearing may require additional time. Proper preparation of the file from the outset significantly reduces delays.
5. What documents do I need in order to take legal action?
The following are essential: the constitutive Regulation of the apartment building, the title deeds, the minutes of the general assemblies (especially the one containing the mandate to the manager), the minutes of the manager’s election, the statements of common expenses with the relevant supporting documents, as well as any evidence of the breach (photographs, extra-judicial notices, complaints filed with authorities, witness statements, audio recordings where permitted). When the dispute concerns a tenant, the lease agreement is also useful, particularly if it contains the tenant’s acceptance of the Regulation. The more complete the file, the stronger the legal position and the swifter the outcome.
6. What role does a lawyer play in such cases?
The lawyer first reviews the Regulation and the building’s minutes, assesses whether the conduct truly amounts to a breach, and selects the correct procedural route — a lawsuit against a co-owner, an in rem action against a tenant, interim measures or a payment order. He drafts the pleadings, represents the co-owner or the manager before the court, and undertakes the enforcement of the judgment. In parallel, he may attempt an out-of-court resolution by way of a letter to the offending party or through mediation, in order to avoid prolonged litigation. The firm’s experience in horizontal property cases ensures a strategy tailored to the specific characteristics of each apartment building.