Vathis & Associates — Real Estate & Planning Law | Noteworthy News
I. Introduction: A High-Demand Investment Landscape
The southern suburbs of Athens — the so-called Athenian Riviera — have become in recent years one of the most dynamic real estate markets in Southern Europe. According to recent market analyses, the southern suburbs rank at the top of property prices in Greece, with average sale prices exceeding €4,000/sqm, while in prime locations — Vouliagmeni, Glyfada, Voula, Elliniko — prices reach and surpass €7,000/sqm. International interest is unmistakeable: investors from the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France and the Gulf states have systematically established themselves in the area, with foreign buyers accounting for a significant share of transactions in Attica.
Against this backdrop of intense investment activity, properties subject to pending legal or planning restrictions assume particular importance. A question that recurs systematically in practice — and that many buyers encounter only after completion — concerns properties that carry urban planning burdens or are subject to urban expropriation orders. Managing such properties requires specialised legal knowledge, given that the lifting of the expropriation does not automatically resolve the problem — as the case law of the Council of State confirms categorically.
II. The Core of the Problem: Lifting of Expropriation ≠ Buildable Property
A critical issue that is frequently misunderstood is the equation of the lifting of an urban expropriation with the restoration of a property’s buildability. This equation is incorrect and has proved costly for investors and owners who assumed that, once the planning encumbrance was removed, their property could be licensed for construction.
The settled case law of the Council of State (indicatively: CoS 638/2020, 168/2020, 1229/2019, 1822/2018, 2126/2017) is unambiguous: when the Administration finds that the conditions for lifting an urban expropriation or planning burden are met, it is simultaneously obliged to re-regulate the planning status of the specific property, since the mere lifting of the expropriation or burden does not automatically render the property buildable. Until the amendment of the city plan is completed, the property remains in a state of planning non-regulation (poleodomikos arrythmisto).
This finding has immediate practical consequences for the owner: even where the urban expropriation has been lifted by operation of law — pursuant to the time limits set by Law 4759/2020 — the path to obtaining a building permit remains open only in formal terms. In practice, the completion of a complex administrative and legislative procedure for the targeted amendment of the urban plan is required.
III. The Legal Framework: Law 4759/2020 and the Automatic Lifting
Chapter H of Law 4759/2020 (Articles 87–93) reorganises urban expropriations, dealing principally with questions of their lifting and re-imposition. Under Article 88 of that Law, an urban expropriation is lifted automatically, without the need for a declaratory administrative act, upon the expiry of specific time limits from its imposition — namely: fifteen (15) years from the approval of the urban plan, five (5) years from the ratification of the implementation act, or eighteen (18) months from the determination of the unit compensation price.
Once all the above time limits set by the legislature have expired, the expropriations — both the urban expropriation and the compulsory replotting (proskyrosi) — are lifted by operation of law, without the need for a declaratory act, provided that the Administration accepts this conclusion. Where, however, the Administration refuses to acknowledge the automatic lifting or remains inactive, the owner is compelled to resort to the Administrative Courts — not in order to achieve the lifting, which has already occurred by operation of law, but to compel the Administration to comply with it. In any event, the automatic lifting does not itself produce the effect of buildability. The indispensable precondition remains the targeted amendment procedure for the approved urban plan, which is initiated by the owner’s application to the competent Municipality, follows a specific public consultation process, and culminates in a Presidential Decree or equivalent legislative act.
IV. The Strategic Management of the Case
In the context of the services we provided in connection with a plot of land sale in the southern suburbs of Athens, we conducted an extensive legal and planning title search. In the course of that search, we identified on the one hand issues relating to outstanding encumbrances on the property, and on the other — and this was the most critical finding — that the property, notwithstanding the automatic lifting of the urban expropriation, remained in a state of planning non-regulation: the necessary targeted amendment of the urban plan that would render it buildable had not been issued.
This finding had immediate consequences both for the legal status of the property and for the prospects of obtaining a building permit — a matter which constituted a central investment parameter for our client. It was further noted that a prior topographic survey that had been used in connection with a sale and purchase agreement concealed the planning issue, presenting the property as regular and buildable without drawing attention to its unregulated planning status.
Our legal advice focused on the following:
First, on the recognition that the automatic lifting of the urban expropriation is the starting point, not the end point, of the process. The lifting is a necessary but not sufficient condition for buildability.
Second, on the determination of the administrative and litigation strategy for the targeted amendment of the urban plan pursuant to Article 88(2) of Law 4759/2020 — a procedure requiring engagement with the competent Municipality, the filing of a full amendment application and, in the event of refusal or inaction by the Administration, recourse to the Administrative Courts for the annulment of the implied rejection.
Third, on highlighting the necessity of engaging a trusted engineer to study the planning status of the property, so as to accurately map its position in preparation for the amendment procedure and future licensing.
V. The Critical Role of the Administration — and the Limits of Patience
The case law of the Council of State allocates responsibilities clearly: the Administration, upon finding that the conditions for lifting are met, is obliged to simultaneously initiate the procedure for a new planning regulation. When this does not occur — whether through inaction or refusal — the owner is not left without recourse. Two legal remedies are available:
On the one hand, an application before the Administrative Court of First Instance seeking the annulment of the Administration’s implied or express refusal to comply with the automatic lifting — an application which, if granted, equips the owner with a judicial decision recognising the obligation to amend the city plan. On the other hand, at a second stage, the submission of a full targeted amendment proposal — either independently or in cooperation with a neighbouring owner — so as to advance the amendment of the urban plan by Presidential Decree.
VI. Practical Guidance for Property Buyers and Investors
Our experience from this case highlights a number of issues that every property buyer or investor should examine before any notarial transaction:
- Full title search — A chronological review of the registered title chain reveals encumbrances, mortgages, pre-notations and other third-party rights burdening the property.
- Land Registry search — The cancellation of encumbrances, pending applications and mortgages must be examined thoroughly at the competent Land Registry Office, both as regards the status of their cancellation and any new registrations.
- Planning search — The existence of a planning burden, the occurrence of an automatic lifting and the current state of the city plan are distinct matters. A separate search at the competent Municipal planning service is required.
- Buildability check — A declaration that the property is “regular and buildable” in a topographic survey must be accompanied by a specific reference to the property’s current planning status. The absence of such a reference is, in itself, a reason for caution.
VII. Conclusion
The Greek real estate market — and particularly the southern suburbs of Athens — currently presents outstanding opportunities for investors seeking access to one of the most vibrant property markets in Southern Europe. However, Greek planning legislation continues to harbour traps that require specialised legal assistance — and the urban expropriation regime is among the most characteristic of these.
Understanding that the lifting of a planning burden does not automatically restore a property’s buildability — and that between the lifting and the issuance of a building permit there lies a complex procedure of targeted urban plan amendment — is an essential premise for any investment aimed at developing a property. Timely legal advice and a thorough legal due diligence represent the most effective tools for protecting investment value.
Vathis & Associates provides comprehensive services in title searches, planning law analysis and the management of urban expropriation matters, combining expertise in both private and public law in the service of domestic and international clients investing in the Greek real estate market.
For further information on real estate legal matters and planning law, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
