Co-leaseholding exists when the leased property, movable or immovable, belongs to multiple persons as co-owners (joint ownership) according to Article 1113 of the Greek Civil Code, and they lease it to a third party.
In cases of co-leaseholding, the lease agreement, concerning the regulation of the internal relations among the co-lessors, is governed by the provisions on co-ownership (Articles 785 et seq. of the Civil Code), since the granting of the use of the leased property is indivisible, to the extent that the physical delivery of the leased property is not susceptible to division. These provisions distinguish between acts of disposition (Article 793 of the Civil Code) and acts of administration and management (Articles 788 et seq. of the Civil Code). Among the acts of administration related to leasing are included the conclusion of the lease, its termination, and the filing of a lawsuit for repossession of the leased property.
For these acts of administration to be valid, they must be carried out either jointly by all co-lessors/co-owners (Article 788 of the Civil Code), or by those who hold the majority of the shares, which, in case of doubt, are considered equal, or by a manager appointed for the co-ownership (Article 790 of the Civil Code). Moreover, the decision of the majority of co-owners, made within the framework of Article 789 of the Civil Code, concerns not only their internal relations but also has representative authority and consequently binds all co-owners, including those who disagreed or dissented, as well as those who did not participate in the decision.
Therefore, it follows that a co-owner who holds exactly 50% (or less) has no right to undertake alone any of the aforementioned acts of administration. If the co-owners holding the remaining shares do not agree to form a majority, the only option seems to be to initiate the relevant procedures for the appointment, either by the co-owners themselves or, in case of disagreement, by the Court, of a manager who will act as the general proxy of all co-owners and will carry out these acts on behalf of all.
Furthermore, regarding the lawsuit for repossession of the leased property, it should be noted that this lawsuit must, under Article 495§1 of the Civil Code, have as its claim, in cases of co-leaseholding of the leased property and due to the indivisibility of its use, the repossession of the property by all co-lessors/co-owners jointly as plaintiffs (who stand in a relationship of joint ownership with indivisible shares, since partial repossession of the leased property is not permissible).
Therefore, if a co-owner holding up to 50% undivided share of the leased immovable property terminates the lease of indefinite duration alone, the termination is invalid and produces no legal effect (i.e., it does not terminate the lease), which consequently renders any lawsuit for repossession of the leased property filed on this basis legally unfounded.
Finally, it should be noted that the above provisions regarding the existence of multiple lessors apply not only in the case of a lawsuit for repossession of the leased property due to termination of the lease agreement, but also in the case of a lawsuit filed under Article 66 of the Introductory Law of the Code of Civil Procedure, given the identity of the legal cause. In the case of a lawsuit for the payment of rent, however, each co-lessor has the right (provided there is no contrary agreement) to claim payment only of the part of the rent corresponding to their share.
