A motorway you cannot access, elevated above your remaining land by up to five metres, producing noise and exhaust while restricting your right to build — that is not a benefit. The Areios Pagos confirmed as much on 25 June 2025, upholding the lower court's rejection of the Greek State's invocation of the expropriation benefit presumption in Areios Pagos 15/2026 (Δ' Πολιτικό Τμήμα). The result: the State's principal cassation ground on the benefit question failed, and 269 named landowners adjacent to the Antirrion-Ioannina motorway (ΕΟ Αντιρρίου-Ιωαννίνων) in Western Greece retained the diminution compensation awarded below.
Background: The Antirrion-Ioannina Expropriation
The expropriation concerned land adjacent to the Antirrion-Ioannina motorway in Western Greece. Following a provisional determination of compensation in 2012, the Court of Appeal of Western Greece issued its final determination in decision 154/2014, setting unit compensation figures ranging from €16/sq.m. to €26.50/sq.m. for different plot categories and awarding additional diminution compensation for certain remaining plots.
The Greek State filed its cassation petition the following year, challenging multiple aspects of the Court of Appeal's reasoning — principally its rejection of the benefit presumption and its alleged insufficiency of reasoning on the question of factual distances from the highway to adjacent properties.
The 269 named respondents exceeded the 50-party threshold, a procedural reality that activated the mass-summons mechanism under Article 22(4) of Law 2882/2001, as amended by Article 88(1) of Law 4714/2020 (FEK A 148/31.7.2020).
Full Compensation: Article 13(1) of Law 2882/2001
The foundation of any Greek expropriation matter is the obligation of full compensation (πλήρης αποζημίωση). Article 13(1) of Law 2882/2001 (ΚΑΑΑ) requires that compensation be full (πλήρης) and correspond to the value of the expropriated property at the time of the hearing for provisional determination. Where the final determination hearing takes place more than one year after the provisional hearing, the value is assessed at the time of the final determination hearing.
The criteria for valuation include prices of comparable nearby properties and values established in transfer deeds for similar properties at the relevant date. In this case, the Areios Pagos confirmed that the Court of Appeal's application of Article 13(1) of Law 2882/2001 was correct.
The Benefit Presumption: What It Is and Where It Comes From
Greek expropriation law contains a mechanism that can substantially reduce what the State pays in diminution compensation: the benefit presumption (τεκμήριο ωφελείας). The premise is that when a new road is constructed, remaining adjacent land often increases in value — improved access, greater passing traffic, enhanced commercial potential. If that gain exceeds the diminution suffered from the taking, the State argues the net effect is neutral or positive, reducing the additional compensation it owes.
The legal basis is Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of Law 653/1977 and Articles 33(1) and 33(4) of Law 2971/2001. As the Areios Pagos confirmed in this decision, these provisions no longer establish an irrebuttable presumption. They now establish a rebuttable presumption (μαχητό τεκμήριο ωφελείας): the benefit is presumed unless the landowner produces evidence to displace it.
How the Rebuttal Works: The Four Factors
The Court of Appeal of Western Greece found the benefit presumption rebutted on four cumulative grounds. The Areios Pagos reviewed those grounds under Article 559 of the Civil Procedure Code (KPolD) and confirmed that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted and applied Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of Law 653/1977 and Articles 33(1) and 33(4) of Law 2971/2001. The lower court's reasoning was found to be clear, sufficient, and free from internal contradiction.
The four factors were:
→ The motorway is a closed highway (κλειστός αυτοκινητόδρομος). Adjacent landowners have no direct access to it. The premise of the benefit presumption — that proximity to a road increases access value — cannot apply where access is structurally excluded.
→ The motorway is elevated by up to five metres above the level of adjacent properties. A structure physically above a property does not improve that property's character or utility.
→ The remaining adjacent properties will suffer noise pollution and exhaust emissions (ηχητική ρύπανση και εκπομπή καυσαερίων) as a direct consequence of highway operation.
→ Building distance setbacks (ελάχιστες αποστάσεις) imposed as a consequence of the highway reduce the development potential of the remaining plots.
A fifth consideration reinforced the analysis: separate diminution compensation for the remaining plots (αποζημίωση για τα εναπομείναντα τμήματα) had already been assessed and awarded by the Court of Appeal. Where diminution compensation for retained land is separately quantified, a parallel invocation of the benefit presumption to offset that compensation would constitute double-counting in the State's favour — a result the lower court correctly rejected.
Mass-Expropriation Summons: Article 22(4) of Law 2882/2001
With 269 named respondents, individual service of cassation proceedings would have been impracticable. Article 22(4) of Law 2882/2001, as amended by Article 88(1) of Law 4714/2020 (FEK A 148/31.7.2020), provides the procedural solution for mass expropriations where the number of respondents exceeds 20 (or 50 where the land-register condition under Article 19(4) applies).
Under this provision, summons may be effected by public posting (τοιχοκόλληση) at least 15 days before the hearing at: the court building; the relevant bar association offices; and the relevant municipality offices. Posting must be certified by the court secretary, bar association secretary, and municipality secretary respectively. A website notice through the Ministry supplements physical posting.
In this case, the Greek State produced certificates of posting at:
→ the Areios Pagos building (15 March 2023)
→ the Municipality of Messolonghi (22 March 2023)
→ the Messolonghi Bar Association (20 March 2023)
→ the websites of the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Ministry of Infrastructure (27 March 2023)
All postings fell within the required 15-day minimum period before the hearing. The Areios Pagos confirmed the summons procedure was valid: the mass-posting mechanism sufficed to establish jurisdiction over all respondents without individual service of process.
What Succeeded and What Failed in Cassation
The Areios Pagos partially allowed the cassation. It partially upheld the third cassation ground in relation to certain specifically identified ("referred") properties, and partially quashed Court of Appeal decision 154/2014 in that respect. The case was remanded to the same Court of Appeal under Article 580(3) of the KPolD, to be heard by a differently constituted bench.
The fifth cassation ground — alleging insufficient reasoning on the question of factual distances from the highway to adjacent properties — was rejected as inadmissible (απαράδεκτο) under Article 561(1) of the KPolD. The State's argument contested how the Court of Appeal weighed the distance evidence, not how it interpreted the law. As confirmed by AP 598/2024, AP 53/2018, and AP 318/2016, the Areios Pagos does not re-examine how the court below assessed factual evidence. That assessment is the exclusive domain of the trial court, insulated from cassation review under Article 561(1) KPolD.
Costs were offset under Article 22(2), second subparagraph, of Law 3693/1957, reflecting the partial outcome: the State succeeded on part of the third ground; the landowners succeeded on the benefit presumption and procedural challenges.
Practitioner Takeaways
Three specific points for practitioners advising on Greek highway expropriation matters:
→ Characterise the road type precisely. The benefit presumption under Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of Law 653/1977 and Articles 33(1) and 33(4) of Law 2971/2001 can be rebutted where the adjacent road is a closed motorway with no direct access points for adjacent owners. A landowner's expert evidence must address access, elevation, environmental impact, and building restriction factors — all four contributed to the rebuttal confirmed in Areios Pagos 15/2026.
→ Separate diminution compensation defeats the benefit offset. Where additional compensation for remaining plots has already been assessed and awarded, a simultaneous invocation of the benefit presumption to reduce that compensation is an argument the Areios Pagos has confirmed as correctly rejected. Practitioners defending against the State's benefit claim should ensure any separate diminution assessment is squarely before the court as part of the rebuttal record.
→ Frame cassation grounds as legal errors, not factual disagreements. The State's fifth ground failed as inadmissible because it contested the evidential weight given to factual distances rather than identifying a specific legal error. Any cassation ground that amounts to an argument for a different factual result will be rejected under Article 561(1) KPolD on authority of AP 598/2024, AP 53/2018, and AP 318/2016. Identifying the precise legal error, and separating it clearly from evidential disagreement, is not a drafting formality — it determines admissibility.
The full text of Areios Pagos 15/2026 (Δ' Πολιτικό Τμήμα, 25 June 2025), together with Law 2882/2001 (ΚΑΑΑ), Law 653/1977, and Law 2971/2001 in full, is indexed on OmniLaw. Every answer carries its citation. Primary sources, not summaries. omnilaw.ai
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the benefit presumption in Greek expropriation law be rebutted?
Yes. Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of Law 653/1977 and Articles 33(1) and 33(4) of Law 2971/2001 now establish a rebuttable presumption (μαχητό τεκμήριο) that remaining land adjacent to a road project benefits from that project. The presumption is displaced where evidence shows the road is a closed motorway with no direct access for adjacent owners, is physically elevated above adjacent land, causes noise and exhaust pollution, and imposes building setbacks reducing development potential. Areios Pagos 15/2026 confirms all four factors as sufficient grounds for rebuttal.
How are respondents summoned in mass-expropriation cassation proceedings where hundreds of parties are involved?
Where the number of respondents exceeds 20, Article 22(4) of Law 2882/2001, as amended by Article 88(1) of Law 4714/2020 (FEK A 148/31.7.2020), permits summons by public posting (τοιχοκόλληση) at the court building, relevant bar association offices, and relevant municipality offices. Posting must occur at least 15 days before the hearing and must be certified by the relevant secretaries. Website publication through the Ministry supplements physical posting. Certified compliance with all posting requirements replaces individual service of process for all absent respondents.
What cassation grounds are inadmissible when challenging an expropriation compensation decision of a Greek Court of Appeal?
Any ground that in substance contests the lower court's factual assessment — rather than identifying a specific error of legal interpretation or application — is inadmissible under Article 561(1) of the KPolD. In Areios Pagos 15/2026, the State's ground alleging insufficient reasoning on factual distances from the highway was rejected on this basis, consistent with AP 598/2024, AP 53/2018, and AP 318/2016. The rule is strict: cassation review does not extend to how the court of appeal weighed or analysed the factual evidence it received.
