Under Greek law, immovable property is eligible to serve as collateral for loan agreements. The most common instruments of consensual security are the registration of a notarial mortgage or a prenotation of a mortgage (via interim measures).

A notarial mortgage is directly enforceable, whereas a prenotation of a mortgage requires “conversion” into a mortgage following judicial clearance of the secured claim. Despite procedural variations, the creditor retains the right to accelerate the liquidation of the mortgaged property and to achieve preferential satisfaction from the proceeds of the liquidation.

Securities over immovable and movable property can coexist, even when securing the same claim. For instance, the owner of immovable property may simultaneously pledge equity by means of a pledge over bank accounts or through the assignment of receivables or other claims.

By virtue of an executory title ordering debt repayment (or, under specific legislation, even in its absence), the creditor may foreclose on such pledged equity to satisfy the secured claim. However, securities on immovable property do not inherently grant foreclosure rights over equity.

There is no specific deadline for exercising enforcement rights based on securities in rem, aside from the general rule that enforcement can commence only after three business days have passed since the unfruitful notification of a payment request accompanying the executory title (eg, an order for payment). Executory titles are typically judicial or quasi-judicial in nature, except in cases involving consensual notarial deeds.

Nonetheless, the timing of enforcement proceedings is a critical factor in judicial assessments of their compliance with principles of good faith, proportionality, and non-abusiveness.

Borrowers are entitled to file appeals challenging the validity of executory titles and/or enforcement proceedings initiated under such titles. These appeals can encompass a broad range of issues, subject to special provisions governing the principle of res judicata. Borrowers may contest, jointly or separately, the following:

• the existence of the claim or debt;
• the integrity of the executory title, including procedural irregularities in its issuance;
• the exercise of enforcement rights, assessed against the principles of good faith, proportionality and non-abusiveness (with a focus on the chosen enforcement means);
• the preferential status of the claim and the validity of the security;
• the value of the confiscated asset and the procedural integrity of the scheduled auction.

Unless otherwise specified in a special agreement between the parties and subject to proportionality considerations, there is no prescribed priority regarding the order in which securities may be enforced. The creditor has the discretion to “activate” any security, choosing whether to foreclose on equity or movable assets before or after initiating foreclosure on immovable assets. This applies within the procedural framework for satisfying a single claim against a single debtor.

However, this should not be confused with the ranking of multiple securities over the same asset. In such cases, satisfaction from the proceeds of the asset’s liquidation is governed by strict legal rules concerning the order of priority (privileges), primarily determined by the sequence of registration.

The procedural framework of foreclosure is primarily dictated by the type of executory title forming its legal basis. As previously noted, these titles (except consensual notarial deeds) are issued through judicial proceedings, which are subject to specific time constraints and procedural requirements.

Once the executory title is available, the creditor may impose confiscation of the asset after three business days from notifying the debtor of the title and the accompanying request for payment. Following confiscation, an auction is typically scheduled within seven to eight months. If the auction is not completed for any reason, it can be rescheduled within shorter periods of 40 days or two to three months, depending on the cause of delay.

Deficiencies in the asset may be legally or technically addressed before the auction and may also influence the determination of the “first offer” price. The initial value of the asset is set by the creditor initiating the auction, based on an official valuation report, which forms an integral part of the confiscation documentation.

The debtor retains the right to file an appeal to challenge and adjust the defined value (seeking either an increase or reduction). However, once the auction is successfully completed, no further adjustments to the value can be made.

Similarly, deficiencies in the auction procedure itself can be invoked by the debtor. If valid grounds for contestation are established, this may lead to the rescission of the auction and the nullification of all legal effects stemming from it.

There is no specific company type mandated by law for joint ventures in real estate transactions. However, company types that allow for flexibility in reflecting the composition of the joint venture in their capital structure, such as the traditional Société Anonyme (SA) or private companies limited by shares, are generally preferred. Special covenants regarding the management of the asset may be included in shareholders’ agreements, which exist outside the company’s statutes. If the joint venture is not registered as a separate legal entity under a specific company type, it is typically considered a de facto personal company under Greek law. However, since the acquisition of rights in rem over immovable property requires notarial documentation, de facto joint ventures cannot confer co-ownership rights over such property. For parties that do not wish to establish a new legal entity, co-ownership of the asset remains an alternative, in which case their joint venture agreement functions as a “management or co-ownership agreement”.

The obligations of the parties forming the joint venture are defined by the legal framework governing the chosen company type. In this context, the company’s statutes and any shareholders’ agreements must align with the relevant provisions of company law.

For single-purpose entities created solely for the acquisition and management of real estate assets, the principle of good faith dictates that all rights and obligations under company law (and their exercise in company bodies) must serve the benefit of the asset(s). Thus, general principles of civil law provide a framework that “converts” company law obligations into real-estate-related duties.

Contentious issues concerning management decisions are resolved based on the legal framework governing the chosen company type. Disputes typically arise at the level of company bodies (eg, General Meeting, Board of Directors) and are resolved in accordance with the company’s statutes, shareholders’ agreements, and the relevant provisions of law. These disputes may ultimately be settled by competent courts or other authorities.

In cases of deadlock, a court may appoint a special proxy to temporarily replace the company’s governing bodies and take necessary actions. For single-purpose entities, the principle of good faith ensures that decisions of company bodies are reasonable only if they benefit the asset(s).

If the joint venture is not formalised as a specific company type, disputes remain within the framework of traditional civil law and are governed by provisions related to the co-ownership of rights in rem.

For joint ventures established as separate legal entities, judgments and rulings arising from disputes among parties are generally enforceable at the company level. Specific provisions may determine whether the entity itself must be a party to court proceedings.

In cases where a conflict of interest arises between the majority of votes in a company body and the company itself, or where managers refuse to implement court rulings, courts can appoint special proxies with a specific mandate to act on behalf of the company.

The winding up of a joint venture is governed by the provisions of company law applicable to the chosen company type. In cases of consensual dissolution (non-judicial winding up), liquidators are appointed according to the company’s statutes and are responsible for settling debts before distributing the remaining assets among the partners. The specific circumstances of the winding up determine the final status of the asset(s).

If the joint venture is not formalised as a specific company type, the assets are treated as jointly owned property. In such cases, traditional civil law provides mechanisms for distributing the property among co-owners, including physical division into equivalent-value portions, private auctions, or sales followed by distribution of proceeds. Thus, the winding up of a de facto joint venture is also feasible through traditional civil law concepts.

The selection of the type of guarantee in real estate transactions is primarily subject to the contracting parties’ private autonomy. However, concepts of “limited liability” for the guarantor are not commonly observed in Greek market practice, particularly in relation to limiting the grounds (reasons) that trigger the guarantor’s liability. Contractual clauses excluding the guarantor’s liability in circumstances where the debtor’s liability is established are rare.

More frequently, parties agree on a quantitative limitation, where the guarantor’s liability is capped at a specific amount rather than encompassing the full extent of the debtor’s obligations. In practice, this reflects a numerical rather than qualitative restriction on the guarantor’s obligations. Commonly, the guarantor waives the “separateness” objection, thereby assuming liability equivalent to that of the debtor.

Given the infrequent use of such guarantees within the Greek legal framework, there is limited case law on the matter. The proper implementation of these guarantees requires precise and robust contractual terms that clearly define triggering events for the guarantor’s liability. As a general legal principle, in cases of ambiguity regarding the scope of a guarantor’s liability, the interpretation typically favours the guarantor.

The interpretation and enforcement of both conditional and unconditional guarantees are governed by the principles of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights. There is no explicit legal requirement for the creditor to first seek satisfaction from the debtor before pursuing the guarantor, especially if the guarantor has waived the “separateness” objection.

Nonetheless, the creditor must adhere to proportionality considerations and should refrain from targeting the guarantor’s assets if other, more suitable means of satisfaction are available. A guarantor may be released from their obligations by court decision if they can prove:

• that the creditor intentionally or negligently failed to seek satisfaction from the debtor; or
• that the creditor renounced securities provided by the debtor, thereby prejudicing the guarantor’s position.

Enforcement proceedings against the guarantor are not subject to accelerated timelines compared to those against the primary debtor, unless specific security instruments with expedited enforcement mechanisms are involved. For example, guarantees backed by a bank letter of guarantee (forfeitable on “first demand”) or securities in rem (such as a mortgage over the guarantor’s immovable property) may expedite proceedings.

In any event, the creditor retains the discretion to initiate parallel enforcement actions against both the debtor and the guarantor, provided the principle of proportionality is observed throughout.

The option of arbitration is available to the parties of a real estate transaction both before and after a dispute arises. However, inserting arbitration clauses into sale and purchase notarial deeds is not a common practice in the Greek legal market. Such clauses must be drafted with a high degree of precision to clearly define their scope and avoid disputes over their applicability. Arbitration is also rare in cases involving disputes between owners of adjacent plots.

In contrast, arbitration clauses are more frequently included in statutes or shareholders’ agreements of real estate companies or joint ventures holding real estate assets. It is also common for sale and purchase agreements involving shares of special-purpose vehicles (SPVs) that own real estate assets to include arbitration provisions. Under Greek law, arbitral decisions are binding and enforceable.

Arbitration in real estate disputes tends to involve significantly higher costs, even when conducted purely at the domestic level. However, it generally offers a quicker resolution compared to traditional litigation in Greek civil courts. Arbitration is particularly suitable for disputes involving complex technical or market-specific parameters related to the nature of the asset, as it allows the parties to appoint arbitrators with the requisite expertise.

Arbitral decisions, rulings and awards are enforceable under Greek law, with limited grounds for appeal before state courts.

Greek law mandates an attempt at mediation before the hearing of nearly all cases in court. This step is a procedural prerequisite for the admissibility of the case and its further progression in the judicial system. Mediators are typically appointed by mutual agreement of the parties from an official list of accredited professionals, often lawyers or other legal practitioners.

If mediation is successful, the resulting agreement is automatically enforceable. If mediation fails, the dispute proceeds without the court examining the prior mediation process or attributing any liability to the parties for the failure of mediation.

As previously discussed, in real estate disputes – whether between contracting parties, landlords and tenants, or owners of adjacent plots – Greek courts have the authority to order provisional measures. The content and scope of these measures are determined by the court on a case-by-case basis. Over time, case law has developed specific categories of provisional relief, including orders for temporary possession or use of the property, prohibitions on certain actions (such as finalising an agreement), and tolerating or allowing urgent actions to proceed. These provisional measures remain in place until a definitive decision is issued in the main case.

In this context, a creditor may request a prohibition on changing the legal or factual status of real estate property (or even seek “provisional confiscation”, essentially freezing the asset without foreclosure) during a dispute with the owner. This type of relief is granted through an Interim Order or a court decision within the interim protection framework and may include restrictions such as preventing sale, encumbrance or further construction on the property. The applicant must demonstrate that maintaining the current status quo is in their interest and necessary to protect their rights.

Provisional remedies are always ordered by the court, except in certain special cases where the interested party can unilaterally impose measures based on an executory payment title. For example, a prenotation of mortgage or “provisional confiscation” may be imposed based on a Payment Order, without needing a special court decision to authorise the relief.

Applicants must rely on the system of interim protection, which includes injunctions (interim judicial orders) and decisions granting interim measures. To request such provisional remedies, two key elements must be demonstrated:

• The existence of an emergency or imminent risk of harm without the relief.
• The likelihood that the main claim is well-founded – in other words, that the applicant is entitled to the substantive right they seek to preserve until the main case is heard.

Once the relief is granted by the court, the beneficiary is required to use it in good faith and within the necessary scope of the protection sought. The principle of proportionality is crucial in this context: the provisional remedy aims to temporarily safeguard the rights that are being invoked. However, if these rights are not ultimately confirmed or appropriately addressed through the ordinary court process after the provisional relief has been granted, the plaintiff may be obligated to restore the situation to its previous state (status quo ante). This could include compensating the party that was negatively impacted by the enforcement of the provisional relief.

The Greek legal system includes an additional internal escalation mechanism within the interim protection framework. In cases where an urgent situation requires immediate intervention even before the formal hearing of the request for interim relief, the parties may seek a provisional remedy (injunction) from a judge. This injunction can be granted swiftly, often within a few days of filing the request, and remains valid until the full hearing of the interim request before the court. Typically, the injunction is a partial measure of the requested relief and does not constitute a complete or final resolution of the applicant’s request.

Invoking irreparable harm is an acceptable argument to satisfy the emergency/risk element, which is a prerequisite for judicial protection under the interim protection system. The necessary degree of harm may also be demonstrated by highlighting significant difficulty in repairing the harm, rather than total irreparability. It should be accepted that any situation where the harm cannot be “reversed” if the substantive right of the applicant is recognised at a later stage through ordinary court proceedings fulfils the necessary degree of harm. In other words, the harm arises from the inability to restore the situation to its previous state before the provisional relief was ordered. In this sense, the relief serves to maintain the current situation until a final judgment is made. However, it should be noted that “irreparable harm” is not established merely by invoking economic loss, even if significant in scale.

It is common practice for parties to incorporate both a sale and purchase agreement and a contractor’s agreement (for construction or other works) into the same notarial deed. In such cases, and considering the requirement for notarial documentation, the contractor is often entitled to register a mortgage over the property under construction as security for claims arising from the relevant contract. Additionally, the law provides an extra layer of security for the contractor’s claims by establishing a pledge over the movable property of the principal, which remains in the contractor’s possession and is necessary for the proper execution of the works.

There are no specific regulations or procedural rules governing litigation between institutional players in the real estate market. Special legislation may exist at the level of internal regulations and/or monitoring of these entities, but it does not affect their procedural status before the courts.

The concept of public interest plays a significant role in all real estate-related disputes. While private ownership is strongly protected under the Constitution, this protection is always balanced with other constitutional rights, particularly those related to environmental protection, which directly impact private law. In this context, all real estate transactions must be evaluated in relation to zoning, planning, building regulations and other factors concerning assets that affect public space. Furthermore, Greek courts have ruled that environmental considerations and other elements of public interest are directly applicable to private disputes through the provisions for the protection of personality. In other words, real estate transactions must be examined at the intersection of private and public law.