The issue of public property owned by private individuals has been known in the Greek state for many years, but it was not addressed until it resurfaced with the launch of the first pilot land registration programs in urban centers, including urban areas. such as Vrilissia, Kalamaria, Serres, etc., but also in the countryside. Then, during the period of collecting the first property declarations of 1999-2002, the first problems appeared when the state began to massively declare as its property various lands, which, as it claimed, belonged to Muslims subject to exchange or were transferred to landless people during the distributions of 1930 – 1938 without issuing title deeds such as, for example. in Sikia Halkidiki, Cordelio Thessaloniki and others.

According to the Treaty of Lausanne, these objects legally became the property of the Greek state, even if it did not own them and did not exercise any material jurisdiction over them. These properties were numerous, they were located within the city structure, as part of the plan, for most of them building permits were issued and multi-storey buildings were erected, loans were provided for the purchase of apartments, transfer taxes, ENFIA, inheritance taxes, taxes on parental benefits have been paid, they live with families inside.

Article 4 of Law 3127/2003 attempted to solve the problem, but this did not prevent the state from bringing claims for the recovery of these objects from their owners, which literally laid the foundation for the completion of the land registry. At the moment, thousands of lawsuits by the state against individuals who were acquitted during the first registrations are pending in the courts of first instance across the country, where the Greek state is claiming property that it has ignored for almost 100 years. Let us not forget that usurpation against the state occurs only under certain conditions.

The proposed bill attempts to find a solution to this absurdity, which has arisen under the responsibility of the state and hinders the smooth completion of the land register. Its provisions are moving in the right direction, it seems that serious work has been done and solutions have been given to a number of problems. Of course, legal improvements are needed, which we will find in front of us, as was the case with article 4 of Law 317/2003, and they can be corrected at the consultation stage. I would like to highlight two that I consider important.

The first relates to article 15, paragraph 1, which states that the State refrains from filing claims but makes no provision for claims that are pending or that have not been finalized. There should be a clear provision for the cancellation of these claims.

The second relates to the provision of Article 4, paragraph 2, which excludes from acquisition immovable property that has been declared expropriated or imposed. This is contrary to the provision of article 88 of Law 4759/2020, according to which the expropriation is automatically withdrawn without any declarative act of the administration if 15 years have passed since the imposition, and therefore it cannot be considered as a property. which by law is not subject to reversal of expropriation or rimotomy after the lapse of time.

* Mr. George Magulas is a lawyer.