On March 25, 2026 we used to write in this column that if we lived in a normal country, the news that the government is claiming the 63,6% in a prefecture would sound like something out of a science fiction movie or a bad joke. In the Chania, however, is the harsh reality of the current year.
Four months have passed, and today we have before us a ext. which was sent to the Hellenic Cadastre and to the contractor consortium that had undertaken the cadastral survey process, and which they did not sign «a few outraged people», nor «a few colorful characters». It is co-signed by Chania Bar Association, the Western Crete Division of Technical Chamber of Greece, the Region of Crete and the Municipalities of Chania, Platanias, Kissamos, Kantanos – Selino, Sfakia and Apokoronou.
This letter of formal notice doesn't just say that there are mistakes. It says something much more serious: that the project itself needs to be redone. Not to be corrected, but to be rewritten. In other words, we are talking about challenging the deliverable itself, with all that this entails in practice.
Early morning for a series featuring… the bakaloteftero
The Hellenic Land Registry announced that the posting began on May 25, 2026, and that the process is underway fully digital, without requiring citizens to be present in person. Should one laugh or burst into tears?;
The reality is… slightly different. Anyone who visits the Chania Cadastral Office, where citizens, lawyers, and engineers have been going for weeks now, starting at the crack of dawn, to get in line and write down their full names… on a piece of cardboard (photo below, with names blurred for obvious reasons), they wait patiently for hours until it's their turn, and in the end, many of them leave empty-handed without having been served. This is obviously a… new version of the digital state.
«The Million-Dollar Question»
At the same time, There is a sentence in the cease-and-desist letter that sums up the entire case. How is it possible that the required quality control of the deliverable digital cadastral database was carried out prior to its publication, when such massive, recurring, and elementary errors are identified on a daily basis?;
That is a perfectly reasonable question. If, in fact, If a thorough quality control check was conducted beforehand, how can we explain the fact that errors are now being identified on such a massive and recurring scale?;
Real Estate that disappear. Titles who are missing. Topographic Surveys that are not taken into account. Roads that exist but… don't exist. Other Roads that appear where they never existed. Vari that appear even though they don't exist. Buildings that «spring up» on undeveloped lots. Expropriations the entire provincial road network that are being discarded. Coatings properties. Excerpts boundaries along streams.
If, on the other hand, If the review was limited to a routine procedure, then who took responsibility for giving the «green light» for the post?;
Land Registry – Spot the Mistake
The official response has been more or less the same all these years. The post is there precisely to correct mistakes. That's right. Except that something different seems to be happening here. We're not talking about an incorrect contract number or a wrong name. We're talking about recurring patterns. For entire categories of errors. For statements that do not appear. For additional information that is also not displayed. For related topographic data that were not taken into account. For real rights that are rejected without a clear justification. For employees who, according to the cease-and-desist letter, are unable to explain to citizens why their declarations were rejected.
The government is asking… you to correct its own mistakes
What's even more paradoxical is something else. The government is asking citizens to pay. To pay for a lawyer, an engineer, a new survey, but also to pay with… time and stress. And all this, even though the authorities point out in the pre-litigation notice that much of the information had already been submitted. In other words, the citizen submitted the title deed, the survey, the E9 form, and supplementary information, and is now being asked to… prove all over again that they had already submitted them! In other words, the government’s negligence is passed on to the private sector. That is not good governance.
Who took over the project?;
It is no coincidence that the authors of the extrajudicial letter are not simply asking for explanations. They are requesting specific documents and specific answers. They want to know if and when the subject matter of the contract was received, who signed for its receipt, whether the performance bonds were returned and who were the employees responsible for supervising the project. Simply put, the question is no longer just Why are there so many mistakes?. It is also Who decided that the project was ready to be handed over to the public?.
Because, if the deliverable does indeed contain such extensive defects as described in the extrajudicial notice, then the issue does not concern only the contractor consortium. It also concerns the Greek Land Registry, as the contracting and supervising authority, which was responsible for verifying that a project of national importance met the contractual specifications before it was implemented.
One more… difficult point
There is, however, one more addition that went almost unnoticed. The authorities now explicitly cite Articles 105 and 106 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code. In plain English?; They are now raising the issue of the Greek Land Registry's liability for damages. They aren't saying yet that lawsuits will be filed. They are saying, however, that the legal grounds exist. And that changes a lot. Because until now, the discussion has been about whether an extension will be granted. Now the discussion about responsibility is beginning.
An extension is not the best solution
Does the process need a reasonable extension? Obviously. But let’s not kid ourselves. If the foundation is so deeply flawed, an extension simply gives citizens more time to correct the government’s mistakes. It doesn’t fix the problem itself. That’s why the signatories of the cease-and-desist letter are changing their strategy. They are not content with an extension, but are calling for the scope of the contract to be redrafted as the primary solution.
In other words, they're saying outright that The project does not meet the specifications even in the slightest. This is one of the strongest statements ever made by such a broad institutional coalition against the Hellenic Cadastre.
Shaken Trust
The extrajudicial notice was not only served on the Hellenic Cadastre and the contractor consortium. It was also served on the Office of the Prime Minister and to the Ministers of National Economy, Environment and Digital Governance. In other words, the government—which was aware of the scale of the problems and the unprecedented failures even before the formal notice was issued—must now provide clear answers.
If he believes the project is sound, he should present the quality control data. If he believes there are problems, he should explain why the process is continuing as if nothing were wrong. And if he believes all of this is an overreaction, he should say so publicly. With facts, not with vague statements.
Ultimately, the Land Registry was created to safeguard citizens’ property rights, not to force them to prove all over again that it belongs to them. If today you have to prove to the state what it already had in its possession, then the problem is not just the errors in the cadastral survey. The fact is that the public has lost confidence in the very process that was supposed to strengthen it. And that trust cannot be restored either by extensions or by announcements regarding the Land Registry’s operation under 99% until the end of the year. It can only be restored through truth, accountability, and substantive corrective actions by those responsible for the errors and failures.
