Commercial Lease Disputes in Greece – Complete FAQ Guide

Under Article 574 of the Greek Civil Code, “the lessor is obliged to grant the lessee use of the property for the duration of the contract, and the lessee is obliged to pay the agreed rent.” Commercial leases fall within the scope of Presidential Decree 34/1995, while Law 4242/2014 “radically altered the legal framework for commercial leases”, abolishing earlier tenant-protection provisions. Today, commercial leases are governed primarily by the general principles of the Civil Code and the express agreement of the parties.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/agogi-apodosis-misthioy-kai-oi-schetikes-enstaseis-toy-misthoti

Law 4242/2014 “radically altered the legal framework for commercial leases.” Specifically, leases within the scope of PD 34/1995 concluded after its entry into force “shall be valid for three (3) years, even if agreed for a shorter or indefinite term, and may be dissolved by a subsequent agreement evidenced by a document with a certified date. Notice shall be given in writing and its legal effects shall take place three (3) months from service.” Importantly, “the withdrawal notice (kataggelía metaméleias) does not apply to new leases concluded after 28 February 2014.”
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/i-kataggelia-metameleias-stis-emporikes-misthoseis-ypo-to-kathestos-toy-n-4242-2014-o-rolos-tis-dilosis-pliroforiakon-stoicheion-misthosis-meso-taxisnet

After Law 4242/2014, commercial leases “are valid for three (3) years, even if agreed for a shorter or indefinite term.” The mandatory declaration of the lease on the taxisnet platform is of paramount importance: it “occupies a critical position, strongly documenting any subsequent agreements between the parties”, and its evidentiary weight “is governed by Article 448(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, meaning it constitutes full proof.” Any modifications to the lease that are not declared on taxisnet face significant evidentiary obstacles in any potential dispute.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/i-kataggelia-metameleias-stis-emporikes-misthoseis-ypo-to-kathestos-toy-n-4242-2014-o-rolos-tis-dilosis-pliroforiakon-stoicheion-misthosis-meso-taxisnet

Under Article 288 of the Civil Code, “the obligor has a duty to perform the obligation as good faith requires, having regard to business usage.” For a rent adjustment claim to succeed, it must be shown that “due to foreseeable or unforeseeable circumstances, the rental value of the property has undeniably undergone such a material increase or decrease” as to make payment of the agreed rent disproportionate. Furthermore, “the occurrence of these special conditions must be permanent in character”, while “the critical reference date for such conditions is the date of the first hearing of the action.”
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/nomologiakoi-endeiktes-anaprosarmogis-misthomatos-vasei-arthroy-288-ak

In practice, “the court compares two amounts: the rent currently being paid and the ‘free market’ rent” — i.e. the rent that would be agreed under current market conditions. Case law has accepted the following as grounds for adjustment: pedestrianisation of a street or construction of a metro line (AP 423/2008), the economic crisis of 2010–2015 (AP 595/2020, MEfPeir 50/2021), a drop in pharmacy revenues due to specific regulatory measures (AP 928/2020), and an oversupply of commercial space in the market (MProtAth 2192/2010). The claim is brought by way of action and assessed by reference to the date of the first hearing.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/nomologiakoi-endeiktes-anaprosarmogis-misthomatos-vasei-arthroy-288-ak

“The Covid-19 pandemic constitutes a force majeure event.” Under Civil Code art. 596, “the lessee is released from the obligation to pay rent if prevented from using the leased premises for reasons not attributable to the lessee or within the lessee’s sphere of influence.” For March–April 2020, the Government Legislative Act of 20/3/2020 expressly released the tenant from 40% of the monthly rent. However, “application of Articles 288 and 388 of the Civil Code requires a more permanent change of circumstances, not a transitory one”, so emergency measures of limited duration do not automatically justify long-term rent reductions.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/i-pandimia-toy-koronoioy-os-logos-mi-katavolis-enoikioy
 

An eviction action is brought by the lessor when the lessee refuses to vacate the premises after the lease has expired or been terminated. The legal basis is Articles 599 and 608 of the Civil Code in conjunction with PD 34/1995. The action is filed before the Single-Member Court of First Instance under the special procedure for tenancy disputes (Articles 647 et seq. CPC). A critical feature: “the judgment granting the eviction action is mandatorily declared provisionally enforceable”, allowing the lessor to evict the tenant immediately without waiting for the judgment to become final and unappealable.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/agogi-apodosis-misthioy-kai-oi-schetikes-enstaseis-toy-misthoti

A tenant facing an eviction action has a range of defences available. Case law recognises the following in particular: a “defence of full payment” (proving that all rent has been paid), a “defence of set-off” under Civil Code art. 440 (asserting a counterclaim against the lessor), a “defence of retention” under Civil Code art. 325 (the right to withhold the premises pending performance of an obligation by the lessor), and a “defence of abuse of right” under Civil Code art. 281. The effective use of these defences requires that they be raised in a specific and duly substantiated manner before the court.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/agogi-apodosis-misthioy-kai-oi-schetikes-enstaseis-toy-misthoti

“A tenant is prima facie considered to be in persistent default when in mora”, i.e. when wilfully delaying payment of rent. Case law holds that “persistent default exists when the tenant, despite a formal reminder from the lessor, delays payment of rent on at least two occasions in a manner demonstrating a persistent refusal to meet the obligation” (AP 184/1994, AP 1547/1992). Persistent default entitles the lessor to terminate the lease and subsequently bring an eviction action, while the court examines the tenant’s overall conduct throughout the rental relationship.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/agogi-apodosis-misthioy-kai-oi-schetikes-enstaseis-toy-misthoti

In commercial leases, “the exact opposite rule applies under Article 11 of PD 34/1995, namely that total or partial transfer of the premises to a third party is not permitted, unless there is an express contrary agreement between the parties.” “However, after three years from the conclusion of the lease, transfer of use to a company in which the tenant holds at least a 35% interest is permitted.” In any event, “subletting without authorisation constitutes misuse of the premises and gives the lessor the right to terminate the lease and claim damages under Civil Code art. 594” (AP 15/1990).
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/h-ypekmisthosi-stin-astiki-kai-emporiki-misthosi

In the event of a sale, “the new owner steps into the lease as new lessor from the moment of registration of the deed of transfer”, with the result that “the lease is not treated as new — the terms originally agreed remain in force” (MProtThes 3526/2018). In the case of a judicial auction, “the winning bidder has the right to terminate the lease immediately, with the termination taking effect six months after service of the notice” (CPC art. 1009, as amended by Law 4842/2021). A voluntary transfer of the lease relationship requires the concurrence of all three parties: lessor, lessee, and transferee.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/i-metavivasi-tis-misthotikis-schesis

Under Civil Code art. 590, “the lessor bears the encumbrances on the leased premises and the taxes that burden it”, while “necessary repairs are as a rule borne by the lessor” (Civil Code arts. 575, 592). Conversely, utility costs (water and electricity) and the share of common area expenses are borne by the tenant. The stamp duty (3.6% in total) “is borne half by the lessor and half by the tenant”, unless the lease has been compulsorily extended, in which case it falls entirely on the tenant. Important limitation: “the tenant’s right to recover expenses is extinguished six months after the expiry of the lease” (Civil Code art. 603).
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/vari-kai-dapanes-toy-misthioy-poia-plironei-o-enoikiastis-kai-poia-o-idioktitis

Breach of an ancillary contractual obligation can give rise to significant damages liability. A case in point is the final judicial award of “EUR 500,000 in damages for breach of the tenant’s obligation to carry out fit-out works.” The Athens Court of Appeal confirmed that “the tenant was obliged to carry out the fit-out works pursuant to an ancillary contractual obligation that did not affect the lease character of the agreement” — a ruling upheld by the Court of Cassation. The lesson: “a contract can conceal risks for the parties that are not visible or foreseeable at the time of conclusion”, making careful drafting essential.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/ypochreosis-apozimiosis-toy-ekmisthoti-ypsoys-500-000-eyro-gia-mi-apoperatosi-misthioy

The answer depends on the nature of the rent. As regards future rents, the court held that they “cannot be seized, since the obligation to pay depends on a counterperformance” — application of CPC art. 69 is excluded (MProtAth 274/2023). By contrast, accrued (already earned) rents are amenable to third-party garnishment: “there are active claims for the monthly rent, in the seizure of which the creditor was entitled to proceed” (EfNavpl 246/2021). A tenant who unjustifiably refuses to comply exposes itself to liability for a false third-party declaration.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/apofasi-monomeloys-protodikeioy-athinon-peri-adynamias-kataschesis-mellontikon-misthomaton-eis-cheiras-tritoy

Claims arising from a lease agreement — principally the claim for payment of rent — “are subject to a five-year limitation period under Article 250(16) of the Civil Code.” The same five-year limitation period applies to financial leasing (leasing) contracts, since they are treated as “mixed contracts in which the characteristics of a lease predominate” (MProtAth 70222/2024). A key practical point: even claims evidenced by a payment order may have become time-barred if the lessor failed to serve the order in time — resulting in the annulment of that order and loss of the claim.
Read more: https://psarakislegal.com/apofasi-monomeloys-protodikeioy-athinon-peri-paragrafis-misthomaton-leasing