The keeping of pets cannot be prohibited by apartment building regulations, provided that the conditions of Article 8 of Law 4039/2021 on the keeping of pets in residences are met.
According to Law 4039/2012 “on domestic and stray pets and the protection of animals from exploitation or use for profit” and in particular Article 1, a pet is defined as: “any non-wild animal that is kept or intended to be kept by humans, mainly in their home, for reasons of animal welfare or companionship, and is under the direct supervision and care of its owner, keeper, companion, or guardian.”
According to Article 8 of the same law, concerning the keeping of companion animals in homes:
“The keeping of domestic animals is permitted in every home. In apartment buildings consisting of two or more apartments, the keeping of domestic animals is permitted in each apartment, provided that they:
they live in the same apartment as their owner or keeper,
they do not remain permanently on the balconies or in the open spaces of the apartment,
their stay in apartment buildings is subject to compliance with welfare rules, health regulations, and police regulations on public peace, and
have been checked electronically, have been marked, registered, and have a health booklet.
It is permitted to keep companion animals that have been legally marked and registered and have a health booklet in detached houses, provided that the rules of good treatment and welfare of animals are observed, as well as the applicable health provisions and police provisions on public peace.
It is prohibited to keep and stay with pets in the common areas of the apartment building. However, it is permitted in the entrance hall, on the roof, in the uncovered area, and in the garden, provided that there is a unanimous decision by the general meeting of owners.
The above numerical restrictions apply only to dogs and cats. For other pets, the conditions of paragraph 2 must be observed.
The same regulation may limit the maximum number of animals allowed to two (2) animals per apartment.
Furthermore, it follows from the above specific provisions of the law that, taken as a whole, it constitutes a first attempt by the legislator to define the framework within which relations between people are regulated in relation to the existence of domestic and stray animals.
We note that this law is the precursor to Laws 4235/2014 and 4830/2021, which paved the way for the free feeding and watering of stray animals by both individuals and municipalities, which were obliged to create feeding and watering points for them. Of course, even before these laws, this was not prohibited, provided, of course, that the rules of hygiene and cleanliness were observed.
A characteristic remnant of the previous situation is the terms of rental contracts and apartment building statutes, which prohibit the keeping of pets and their stay in apartments. However, according to the provisions of Article 8 of Law 4039/2012, keeping pets in any residence is permitted, subject to the conditions listed therein.
This means that, provided these conditions are met, the keeping of a pet and its stay in a home (apartment or any other dwelling) cannot be prohibited, not even by apartment building regulations, which can only specify the maximum number of animals per apartment. In the event that such a restriction is not specified in the regulations, it is accepted that more than two (20 animals per apartment) may be allowed, provided that the conditions described in Article 8(1)(a) are met.
However, there may be an issue in the case of apartment building regulations older than Law 4039/2012, which prohibited the keeping of pets in apartments, in which case an amendment will be necessary. Moreover, according to Law 1562/1985 on “the construction of co-owned properties and the amendment of provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for distribution and other provisions,” and in particular Article 9 thereof “if there is already separate ownership by floor or apartment, but no regulations governing the relations between co-owners have been drawn up, at least 60% of the co-owners are entitled to request, by analogy with the provisions of the previous articles, that regulations be drawn up, if necessary to define the relations between the co-owners. Similarly, with a majority of at least 65% of the co-owners, the regulations may be supplemented or amended if they contain deficiencies that prevent the co-ownership from functioning or the use of separate properties in accordance with the purpose of the property.
In contrast to the above, however, a contrary term in a lease agreement prohibiting the keeping of pets in a residence is treated differently, as the agreement between the lessor and the lessee is governed by the fundamental principle of “freedom of contract” and therefore prevails over the law.
It is worth noting that the above situation and the right granted by law to keep a pet, even in a rented residence, in no way affect the lessor’s right to terminate the lease if the conditions of Article 8 above are not met or if he observes misuse of the leased property, i.e. the house/apartment.
In particular, according to Article 594 of the Civil Code, which also applies to commercial leases under Article 15 of Presidential Decree 34/1995, the lessor has the right to terminate the lease immediately if the lessee, despite the lessor’s protests, does not treat the leased property with care and as agreed. This protest by the lessor regarding the misuse of the leased property may, according to the established case law of the Supreme Court, be included in the lawsuit, with the result that the lessee has the opportunity to comply until the lawsuit is filed.
In particular, the above provision establishes a legal obligation on the part of the lessee to use the leased property with the care of a reasonable person. Contrary treatment of the leased property, i.e. misuse thereof, constitutes, according to the established case law of the Supreme Court, the destruction of parts, components or accessories of the leased property and any damage or arbitrary intervention by the lessee without the consent of the lessor, which substantially alters the leased property and which has been made by the lessor for the purpose of serving his economic purpose. Therefore, it is clear that the mere presence of a pet in any residence does not constitute misuse of the leased property, but it is required either that it be contrary to a term of the contract between the lessor and the lessee, or that its presence have a harmful effect, i.e., destruction, damage, or alterations that are not justified by normal use, or that it be contrary to their mutual agreement.
In the above cases, the lessor has the right not only to terminate the lease agreement, but also to be compensated, as follows from the combination of the provisions of 594 AK, 297 of the Civil Code, and 298 of the Civil Code, both in terms of actual damage and lost profits. In other words, the lessor has a claim both for the damage caused to his property and for any consequences thereof (e.g. inability to re-let the apartment because of them), on the sole condition that the damage is causally related to the alleged misuse of the property by the lessee or that the lessee has breached a relevant term of the lease agreement.
Therefore, in accordance with the above and guided by the principle of proportionality of Article 25 of the Constitution and freedom of contract, it is a fact that Law 4039/2012 is fully in line with the general legal system of our country, without affecting the interests of the lessor.
