The rapid spread of Airbnb-style short-term rentals has changed the character of many apartment buildings, frequently giving rise to tension between owners who exploit their flats as tourist accommodation and the remaining residents. In its decision No. 2937/2026, the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Interim Measures Procedure) held that a clause in a building’s regulation providing for the exclusive use of apartments as residences prohibits their operation as short-term rental accommodation, even where the regulation makes no express reference to Airbnb.
The facts of the case
The manager and co-owner of an apartment building in Athens brought proceedings against a company active in property management that had acquired a flat in the same building. From the summer of 2025, the company had listed the property on digital platforms and was exploiting it as tourist accommodation under a short-term rental arrangement. The guests, mostly foreign visitors staying for a few days, caused disturbances both inside the apartment and in the common areas, even during statutory quiet hours, while the uncontrolled entry of third parties also raised security concerns. The building’s regulation expressly provided that “the apartments are intended to serve as residences, and any use other than as a residence is prohibited.”
The building regulation as law between co-owners
The court recalled that, under articles 1, 3, 4 and 13 of Law 3741/1929 and articles 1002 and 1117 of the Civil Code, the co-owners of a building subject to the horizontal property regime may regulate their rights and obligations by agreement, both as to the common areas and as to the individual properties, derogating from the provisions of the law, which are of a non-mandatory (default) nature. Such restrictions have the character of a real servitude: they bind not only those who agreed to them, but also their universal and specific successors, and are enforceable against third parties. The regulation therefore has the force of law in the relations between co-owners and may validly establish restrictions on use, such as the exclusive use of the apartments as residences.
Interpreting the clause in good faith
The key question was whether a clause drafted decades before the emergence of digital platforms could cover short-term rentals, which it does not name. The court held that this gap is filled on the basis of the principles of good faith and sound commercial morals, by interpreting the presumed intention of the contracting parties. Had the co-owners been aware of the possibility of such use, they would have included it within the prohibition, since apartments made available for short-term rental do not in reality function as private residences, but are transformed into hotel-type tourist accommodation.
Why short-term rental is equated with hotel use
The court noted that short-term rental combines the grant of use for a few days with additional services resembling the operation of a hotel: payment of utility bills and common charges by the owner, the provision of bed linen and towels to guests, cleaning services, internet access and use of the common areas. A further characteristic feature is that guests are not made aware of the building’s regulation, unlike tenants under a residential lease. The existence of vacant apartments in the building, which limited the number of affected residents, did not negate the breach, since the restrictions in the regulation protect each co-owner individually and not collectively.
Who is bound by the prohibition
Significantly, the court stressed that the obligation to comply falls not only on the owner who breaches the regulation, but also on persons within their professional circle, as well as those who have the power to use the property under a lease or other legal relationship. An owner who has granted the use of their property for a purpose contrary to the regulation is required to remedy the infringement personally, even where the lease is valid.
The court’s ruling and its consequences
The court granted the application in part and ordered the respondent to cease, and not to repeat in the future, the professional use of the apartment under a short-term rental arrangement, confining its use to that of a residence. At the same time, it imposed a threatened monetary penalty of one thousand (1,000) euros for each breach of the operative part of the decision and ordered the respondent to pay part of the applicant’s legal costs. The requests to remove the online advertisements and the key-storage box were dismissed as inadmissible — the former for lack of legal interest and the latter as vague, since it concerned a matter of managing the common areas that had to be resolved by the General Assembly.
Practical significance of the decision
Decision No. 2937/2026 forms part of a growing line of case law recognising that a building regulation containing an exclusive-residential-use clause can be an effective tool for addressing unwanted short-term rentals, without any need for express mention of Airbnb. For affected co-owners, the route of interim measures offers swift provisional protection backed by the threat of a monetary penalty. For owners who wish to exploit their property through short-term rental, careful review of the building’s regulation before taking any action becomes essential, in order to avoid the risk of a judicial prohibition and the imposition of monetary penalties.