June 2024

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens Rejecting a Claim for the Recovery of a Commercial Lease

The recently published Decision No. 412/2024 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (special procedure - property disputes arising from leases) rejected the opponent's claim. The opponent sought the return of properties owned by her (a ground floor shop and a basement) from our client (and her former husband), which she had granted him the use of under a private agreement. She also sought his forcible eviction from the said properties and the declaration of the related decision as temporarily enforceable.

Specifically, the opponent based her claim for the return of the properties on two legal grounds: firstly, due to the termination of the loan for use agreement, and secondly (alternatively) due to the termination of the commercial lease agreement. Regarding the first ground, the court dismissed the claim as substantively unfounded due to the opponent's failure to provide the required court fee receipt, as per Article 237 paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the second ground, the court, accepting our relevant argument in the context of interpreting the contested private agreement, dismissed the claim as substantively unfounded. The court determined that, from the totality of circumstances and the submitted documents, the relationship was not one of tenancy. Instead, the parties had decided through the contested private agreement to grant the use of the properties in the context of settling their family relations.

The relevant excerpt from the decision reads as follows: "[…] In light of the termination of the marital cohabitation and the resolution of issues concerning custody, alimony, communication, and family housing arrangements, the parties entered into the private agreement dated […] The plaintiff granted the defendant indefinite (lifetime) use of the ground floor shop and the basement, which the defendant was already using for his individual commercial business […] From the entire content of the agreement, from the circumstances under which it was concluded, and from the ongoing legal disputes between the spouses, it is clear that the granting of the use of the properties was done exclusively within the context of regulating the parties' family relations and not for the purpose of leasing the properties to the defendant for his commercial activities. Therefore, since this is not a tenancy relationship, there can be no termination due to the defendant's non-compliance with obligations that cannot be construed as rent, as no lease has been concluded. The reference in the agreement to the phrase ‘The second party states that she will not demand any rent for the use of the shop...’ does not negate the above conclusion, as it refers to the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the use of the property, which is linked to and calculated based on its rental value, hence the use of the term ‘rent’."