A case of squatting between co-owners of a two-storey building in Hydra

The claim of the opposing parties was the removal and demolition of an unauthorized structure-building on the open space of the roof. That was rejected, because it was considered that this structure is part of the separate and independent horizontal property of our client (and defendant) and not part of the common areas of the building. It was also considered that the construction has been subject to regularization under Law 4495/2017.

According to the 3507/2023 decision of the Piraeus Court of First Instance, it was decided:

«… In view of all the above, the parties’ father, …, the licensor of the parties, made the above-mentioned agreement no. …. and the transfer of full ownership of the first-floor apartment with a total surface area of 64.07 m², as indicated in the same deed of incorporation, to his daughter, the defendant, including the unauthorized building with the dimensions described above, whereas the defendant has already submitted and relies on the deed of incorporation no. …. original declaration of inclusion in Law 4495/2017, which includes the contested extension of a residential floor, with a reported excess of 30.93 square meters of main space, while the remaining open space is part of the forced co-ownership of the co-owners, according to the above Act of Constituting Horizontal Property, which clearly states that the defendant’s horizontal property is bordered to the north with a terrace. On the contrary, there is no evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claim that the unauthorized construction of an area, according to the plaintiffs themselves, of 36 square meters, included in the aforementioned … autopsy report, has been erected on, according to the Act of Establishment of Horizontal Properties, an originally common and publicly owned part of the building, different from the horizontal property of the defendant. From the above it is proved that the unauthorized construction-building, as referred to in no. …., measuring 7.1 metres in length, 5 metres in width and an average height of 3.15 metres, is identical to and forms part of the defendant’s horizontal property, and in particular the apartment with the reference …, as established by the father of the parties’ franchisor, …, by virtue of the deed No. …. of the notary’s deed of incorporation of the building, which was legally registered, without that part of the building ever having formed part of the common areas of the building in accordance with the aforementioned deed of incorporation, as the plaintiffs wrongly claim, nor, therefore, can there be any question of a breach of the plaintiffs’ right of co-ownership and confusion over that part of the first floor of the building.

In consequence of the foregoing, the present action, in so far as it has been found to be definite and lawful, must be dismissed as unfounded in substance, in accordance with the grounds set out in the grounds of this application. Finally, the costs incurred by the defendant, at the defendant’s request (Article 191(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure), shall be borne by the applicants (Article 176 of the Rules of Civil Procedure), as set out in particular in the operative part of this order. …».