The example is a familiar one: you own a property and wish to transfer it, but are unable to do so because of outstanding debts to the Greek State. The most obvious solution would be to obtain a tax clearance certificate where the debts to the State are subject to a repayment arrangement, on condition that part of the purchase price is withheld. Put simply, the property is transferred, but where the outstanding debt exceeds the purchase price, the notary will generally withhold 70% of that price and remit it to the State. The alternative, where the debts to the State are not subject to a repayment arrangement, is to obtain a certificate of outstanding debt. In that case, the entire purchase price stated in the notarial deed is applied towards repayment of the debt.
A widely used means of arranging debts to the State is now the platform of the Out-of-Court Workout Mechanism established under Law 4738/2020. Even in that case, however, the debtor may obtain a tax clearance certificate only subject to the withholding of 70% of the purchase price.
The debtor therefore has little incentive to proceed with the transaction. The only apparent alternative would be to agree with the purchaser that part of the price would be paid outside the notarial deed and outside the banking system, with all the risks that this would entail for both parties. We do not recommend this course of action.
The legislature has recently introduced the possibility for the State to recover only 25% of the debt, provided that the property has been attached by the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) (see Decision A.1158/2026 concerning transfers of attached properties). As stated in AADE’s press release of 30 July 2026:
“Until now, as a general rule, an attachment could be lifted and the transfer of a property completed only if the outstanding balance of the debt was paid in full.”
However, apart from the fact that this arrangement concerns the recovery of 25% of the total debt in respect of which the State imposed the attachment—and not 25% of the sale price, the applicable procedure is particularly complex. Eligibility depends on the debtor’s score on a scale from 0 to 100, calculated by reference to various criteria, including tax compliance and the duration and origin of the debt. Only debtors obtaining a score of at least 80 qualify for the preferential 25% treatment.
What alternative therefore remains and is now being used with increasing frequency in property transfers? The court-authorised “private sale” provided for in Article 998(6) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure.
Under that provision, which has been in force since 1 January 2026, the debtor whose property has been attached may apply to the competent court for permission to sell it to a third party without following a competitive bidding procedure through the e-auction platform.
In such a case, the purchaser acquires the property free from encumbrances, while the State—together with e-EFKA and other similarly ranked creditors—receives only 25% of the purchase price. This is because no tax clearance certificate is required where immovable property is transferred through a court-authorised private sale. Instead, the ranking and distribution provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure determine which creditor receives what. Unless it has registered a mortgage, the State enjoys a “general preferential claim”, entitling it—together with all other generally preferred creditors—to receive up to 25% of the purchase price.
The procedure therefore requires a court judgment, which is generally issued relatively quickly, usually within one to three months. The court’s role is essentially to verify that the proposed purchase price is reasonable and does not prejudice the interests of creditors holding a mortgage or a prenotation of mortgage.
The law expressly provides that the purchase price:
“may not be lower than seventy per cent (70%) of the initially determined reserve price”.
The initial reserve price is determined by a certified valuer appointed at the discretion of the judicial bailiff. Creditors holding a mortgage or a prenotation of mortgage must also be summoned to the court hearing, so that they may submit their views regarding the reasonableness of the proposed price and any related matters.
Ultimately, therefore, the court-authorised private sale facilitates property transfers by requiring the State to accept less than it would receive through a decision lifting the attachment, the issuance of a tax clearance certificate or the issuance of a certificate of outstanding debt.
One safeguard against the property being sold at an unduly low price—and the State’s 25% share being reduced accordingly—is the requirement that creditors holding a mortgage or a prenotation of mortgage be summoned to the hearing. Their views can therefore be heard, enabling the court to form a more comprehensive assessment of the property’s value.
Nevertheless, the possibility of sham attachments cannot be excluded. Purported creditors may attach properties at artificially low reserve prices solely to circumvent the State’s interests. The risk becomes even more acute where, for any reason, the interests of creditors holding a mortgage or a prenotation of mortgage do not coincide with those of the State.
A possible safeguard against such practices would be to require the State—and e-EFKA, in respect of which the same concerns arise—to be summoned to the hearing of every application for a court-authorised private sale. The court would then also be able to take their position on the proposed sale price into account.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]