The obligation of the owner of an apartment to carry out repair and maintenance works on the balcony (veranda) was recognized by a recent decision of the Single-Member Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki. The court held that the negligent maintenance caused water leakage into the lower apartment, which resulted in humidity and structural stability problems.
Specifically, according to the provisions of Law 3741/1929, the floor-owner, who has exclusive ownership of the balcony of their apartment, not only has the right to maintain and repair it but, when failure to repair causes impairment to the use of the apartment below, they are obligated to carry out repairs at their own expense. In case of neglect, the owner of the damaged apartment is entitled to demand the repair in order to remove the nuisance.
Moreover, the fact that the need for repair arose due to a defective initial construction (whether culpable or not) by the contractor of the entire building, before the balcony owner acquired ownership, has no legal effect on the latter’s obligation to repair vis-à-vis the harmed owner of the lower apartment in the same building.
In the present case, the balcony of the defendant’s apartment remained uncovered and exposed to weather conditions for a long period, resulting in frequent pooling of stagnant water due to poor slopes of previous constructions and broken floor tiles. This caused water ingress into the lower floor apartment, which on one hand caused humidity problems and on the other endangered the structural integrity of the building itself. An expert inspection proved that specific repairs were necessary on the said balcony in order to resolve the water ingress issue.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant, owner of the upper-floor apartment, is obliged to remedy the above defects of her balcony by carrying out the necessary works as deemed appropriate by the expert. Should she refuse, the plaintiff, owner of the lower apartment suffering from the water ingress, is permitted to perform the repairs themselves, at the defendant’s expense. The Court also calculated in detail the total amount of such expenses.
