1.What does it include?

Neighbouring law generally refers to the restrictions that may affect the property rights of each property owner due to the coexistence with the corresponding rights of others. Indeed, for the harmonious coexistence among multiple individuals, it is necessary for certain rights to be restricted (either directly or indirectly) to avoid conflicts. Additionally, some prohibitions are directly stipulated by law (thus requiring no interpretation), while others are inferred interpretively from it. The main consequence of this is that the second category of prohibitions (e.g., a neighbour requesting passage through another’s property) requires a contract or a court decision, and a claim cannot always be directly justified by the law. Finally, it is important to note that the provisions established by neighbouring law are not mandatory, and thus, they can be subject to different agreements between the parties, while they generally apply between the parties (and their validity is not extended to everyone, solely by an agreement between two property owners).

2.My neighbour is causing noise.What can I do?

The law stipulates that, in principle, a property owner must tolerate certain noise emissions from a neighbouring property, only if they are usual for the use of the property and do not exceed the necessary limit (e.g., during renovation in the upper apartment and the work is not carried out during the hours of common quiet, which are observed). It is worth mentioning that the balancing of interests here is made with objective criteria (for what purpose the neighbouring property exists) and not subjective ones (e.g., the character of the neighbour), while it has been judicially ruled that it does not matter which of the two property owners has been in the area longer, nor if the harmful actions occurred before the annoyed neighbour settled in their property. Therefore, the main owner of the property that is being harmed is entitled to bring a negative action against their neighbour to request the cessation of the offense and its future omission (while a claim for compensation is not excluded). Similarly, if they are not the main owner but a lessee (e.g., a tenant renting a house that does not belong to them), they can file a lawsuit for the disturbance of possession instead of a declaratory action, and also request the imposition of injunctive measures for possession if they desire temporary judicial protection.

3.What claims do I have if a building is erected on a neighbouring property?

In this case, the main owner of the neighbouring property has the following options according to the law:

• To request the prohibition of the entire installation on the neighbouring property if it is done in violation of the permit of the authority (even when there is no permit) or special terms required by law (e.g., urban planning regulations regarding the building coefficient).
• If the installation has been completed (e.g., a farm has been built on the neighbouring property), to request its removal, meaning that the neighbour must dismantle it, only if it entails excessively harmful and illegal consequences for the neighbouring property. If these consequences are future-oriented, they must be foreseen as certain and not merely speculative (according to the usual course of events).

4.And what if it’s a dilapidated building?

There are often cases where the construction of a building begins on the boundaries of a neighbouring property, without the necessary preparation in the foundations to ensure a proper construction (e.g., necessary supports have not been placed on the ground). In this case, the owner of the neighbouring property is protected from a potential collapse of the structure, which could result in total destruction of their own property as well. Therefore, they can request their neighbor to take the necessary measures for the construction of the building (the liability of both parties is not relevant here). Otherwise, they can also take action themselves if the measures are urgent, without their act being inherently illegal. It should be noted that the law establishes objective liability of the owner/builder whose construction collapsed and caused damage to another (= they are primarily liable for compensation against the third party, unless they prove that they are not at fault and all due care was taken).

5.My property is landlocked (=has no access to a road). Is there a solution?

According to the provisions of neighbouring law, if a property lacks the necessary access to the road (without the fault of the owner) and passage through neighbouring property is necessary, the owner of the property has a claim against their neighbour for granting passage to the road. Initially, we are referring to access only to a public/shared road, and only if the owner of the property offering passage provides reasonable compensation to the one granting passage (covering at least the expenses for the construction of the passage, as well as any potential decrease in the value of the property granting passage).

In addition, four more elements are necessary for the establishment of the passage:

• A final court decision (=a decision not subject to appeal and final judgment) stating the establishment of passage on the respective property in favor of another.
• The decision must be recorded (at the corresponding cost) in the relevant mortgage register/cadastral office where it operates (mainly for public notice and to inform third parties).
• The claim for passage is not only held by the owner of the property but also by other individuals (such as usufructuaries, lessees, and if there are multiple, each co-owner for their ideal share of the property).
• The owner of the property granting passage may request the termination of the passage if it becomes unnecessary (even before the passage of 20 years, as is the rule).

6.To what extent am I required to tolerate repairs on a neighbouring property?

Let’s assume that a building is being constructed on the adjacent plot (or renovations are being carried out in the upper apartment), and workers need to pass through my property to perform the work (there may be no other way of access). The law states here that I am required to tolerate the disturbances caused during the time these works are carried out under two conditions:

• The use of my property is not excessively obstructed by these works (e.g., access to/from it is not significantly impeded).
• My neighbour has provided compensation for the temporary obstruction of use or has provided some security for it (e.g., they have given me an item as collateral in case the agreed terms are not met).
• The neighbour does not abuse their right (e.g., does not impose extreme time limits, works within the hours of common quiet, uses my property when there was a better and less burdensome way).

7.What about property boundaries? How are they regulated?

Regulation in this area is applied incrementally, so we will try to present it accordingly:

• When boundaries between two properties need construction/repair to be rectified, each owner has the right (and the other, accordingly, the obligation) to undertake, at their joint expense, the construction of their property boundaries.
• In cases where property boundaries are disputed, the owners can request the court to settle them. It is important here that if the boundaries are so indistinct (almost non-existent), the court will divide the disputed area into equal parts, and each owner will receive one of them.
• If the two properties are separated by a strip of land, a path, or any other type of communication, each owner has the right to use this passage under the condition that they do not disturb the passage of the other. It is also worth mentioning that the expenses in the case of construction/repair are equally borne by both owners, and this passage of land (whatever its form) requires a decision by both (or more if applicable) owners to change its use, abolish it, etc.

8.And regarding rainwater?

Regarding this matter, reference is made to articles 1024-1025 of the Civil Code, which stipulate:

• The owner of a property (urban or rural) that is lower than its neighbour’s is obliged to accept water (mainly natural, e.g., rainwater) originating from the higher property (without any human intervention).
• Similarly, if a property has a problem, for example, with its roof, and this results in water being transferred to the neighbouring house, then the owner of the defective property is obliged to repair their construction (by adding a drainage system to channel the water), with the primary aim being to prevent the water from flowing into the neighbouring property.
• If the owner of the property discovers that there is a water source/well on it or creates one, then they are obliged not to waste all the available water in the area and, in any case, to ensure that it is sufficient for the residents of the local community (thus, the owner does not have such an obligation if there is already enough water in the area or if it is a city where there is no problem).

9.There is a well on my property / neighbouring property.Do claims arise?

Although special laws have been enacted today, which regulate the issue more clearly (they will be a separate subject of analysis), it is worth looking at the general framework in this case as well. Thus, it is stipulated that the owner of the property on which there is a spring/well is obliged to provide water to the neighbouring property under certain conditions:

• The water on the neighbouring property is not sufficient for all domestic (note: not professional if the property is commercial) needs (such as laundry, watering the yard, etc.).
• The extent to which the neighbour can obtain water from elsewhere (if this is possible without significant expense for them, then I am not obliged to provide it to them, but this is assessed separately in each case).
• I am not deprived of the water necessary for my (basic and non-basic) needs.
• If I eventually provide water to the neighbouring property, the neighbour is obliged to compensate me for this provision.

10.How do I assert my claims?Do they expire?

If one carefully observes the provisions of articles 1003-1032 of Civil Code, they will understand that for every right of the owner of the neighbouring property corresponds an obligation of the property being provided (in any form). Therefore, if one of the parties seeks judicial protection, they can simply demand through extrajudicial proceedings/lawsuit the compliance with this contractual obligation (=it acts only between the 2 parties, not against all).

In addition to the above possibility, the owner of the property and their successor (but not the simple possessor as their protection is not justified) are entitled to exercise negative litigation (removal of the illegal infringement committed on the property, omission in the future, and possibly compensation claim).

As provided by the law itself, the claims of neighbouring law are imprescriptible. This regulation is particularly important because there is no risk of losing a short deadline and ultimately forfeiting the claim. Another issue is that if the claim is exercised much later and having created the impression on the other side that it will not be exercised (e.g., sudden assertion of a claim for providing a passage while the owner of the property has been using another equally suitable road for 19 years), it will be judged as a weakening of the right, and thus the right, although not time-barred, practically cannot be exercised.

Next to the client and his needs.

Athina Kondogianni-Lawyer

 

The above does not constitute legal advice, and no liability is assumed for them. For more information, please contact us.