When it comes to correcting an initial registration marked “unknown owner” and the beneficiary invokes adverse possession as the title of acquisition, the beneficiary’s lawsuit is directed against the Greek State.
According to the provisions in force regarding the operation of the land registry, in the case of an inaccurate initial registration, an action may be brought before the competent court in terms of subject matter and location, seeking the recognition of the right infringed by the inaccurate registration and the correction, in whole or in part, of the initial registration.
The action may be either declaratory or assertive and may be brought by any person with a legal interest, within an exclusive period of five (5) years from the publication of the decision of the Land Registry Agency in the Government Gazette.
By way of exception, in the case of a correction of an initial registration marked “unknown owner” and where the beneficiary invokes adverse possession as a title of acquisition, the action is brought against the Greek State, which is considered to be the owner of the properties marked “UNKNOWN OWNER” as soon as the first document becomes final.
In particular, in a case examined by the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Larissa, in a lawsuit against the Greek State, the plaintiff, who was the owner of an apartment listed in the land registry as “unknown owner,” sought recognition of his ownership, which arose from extraordinary adverse possession of 20 years or more.
Specifically, he resided in this property without a regular contract, but only with a preliminary sales agreement, and since then he has exercised acts of ownership and possession, with the intention of being the owner, for a period of more than 20 years, without ever being disturbed by anyone.
He claimed that, due to an oversight, when registering the property in the relevant book of the Land Registry Office of L., the property in question was registered as “owner unknown,” and he requested in the lawsuit under consideration
- a) recognition that he is the owner of the disputed property and
- b) that the first registration of the disputed apartment with the indication “unknown owner” be corrected so that the plaintiff is listed as the owner, with his title of acquisition being extraordinary adverse possession.
The court examined the admissibility of the claims in the lawsuit, noting that a summary of the lawsuit had been duly registered in the land registry of the competent Land Registry Office in L. but did not consider it necessary to produce an ENFIA certificate (Law 4223/2013), since, in its opinion, the provision establishing the inadmissibility of the lawsuit if the ENFIA certificate is not produced by the litigant violates and is in direct conflict with the provision of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the provisions of Articles 17, 20, and 25 of the Constitution (property rights, the right to legal protection, and the principle of proportionality), on the grounds that it is not possible for a purely tax provision, which does not concern the protection of parties to real estate transactions or seek to provide judicial protection, to constitute a specific procedural requirement for a real action and a prerequisite for a decision on the merits to be issued, since the objective of the proceedings must always be to issue a decision on the merits and the procedural requirements must be intended to ensure the smooth and unimpeded flow of the proceedings and to guarantee a correct judicial decision.
The Court rejected the State’s objection that the property had become its property “as an unknown owner,” since, according to Article 4(b) of Law 3127/2003, in settlements that existed prior to 1923, adverse possession against the State is possible, provided that, until the entry into force of this law, i.e. until 2003, the beneficiary had been in undisturbed possession of the property for 10 years and had legal title himself or through his assignors.
Thus, the action was upheld and a) the plaintiff’s right of ownership of the disputed apartment was recognized, and b) the correction of the first entry in the relevant Land Registry Sheet of the relevant Land Registry Office was ordered and the plaintiff was registered as the owner of the apartment.
