The Municipality of Kythira is facing a accumulated and complex series of cases relating to the use municipal properties by private individuals who, according to the Agency's public documents, continued to use them after the expiry of their lease agreements. Between 2024 and 2025, the Municipal Committee and the municipal services proceeded with successive decisions that resulted in in lawsuits against three different persons —Mr. Syrmalis Georgios, Mr. Kominos Georgios (current deputy mayor), and Mr. Mastoris Konstantinos— bringing to light a chronic issue of municipal property management.

The issue of the Municipality of Kythira's real estate holdings has been brought to the fore by the leader of the main opposition, municipal councilor Zacharias Souris., revealing the in-depth research conducted by his party over the past two years on this.

The Kominos case: the “Old Museum”

The case of municipal property «Old Museum» in Chora, Kythira, began in 2008, when the Municipality of Kythira leased the property to Georgios Kominos of Konstantinos for use as a warehouse. The lease, although initially for nine years, was automatically extended to twelve years, based on the framework in force at the time, and finally expired on April 21, 2020.

After the lease expired, the tenant remained in the property without an active contract. Despite the Municipality's requests (as mentioned in the proposal of the Municipal Committee Chairman, Mr. Charhalakis) to return the property, it was not handed over, while rent and compensation for non-contractual use were paid until June 30, 2024.

The February 2024, the Municipality of Kythira proceeded to official auction notice for the lease of the Old Museum, with a minimum bid of 180 euros per month, marking the transition to a new exploitation regime.

The auction took place on February 16, 2024. The highest bidder was Emmanuel Kousouris, with an offer 185 euros per month. The result of the auction was approved by the Municipal Committee with Decision 44/2024, making Mr. Kousouris legal beneficiary of the new lease of the property.

Despite the completion of the auction and the existence of a new tenant, the property not attributed to the Municipality so that it can be handed over to the highest bidder. Thus, on September 11, 2024, the Municipal Committee, on the recommendation of Mr. Charhalakis, adopted the Decision 132/2024, approving the exercise lawsuit against Georgios Kominos for:

the return of the lease and
the payment of compensation for non-contractual use by July 1, 2024 and thereafter.

At the relevant meeting, Georgios Kominos stated abstention, while the decision was approved by a majority vote. The case was assigned to a lawyer in Athens, with an initial fee of €450 plus VAT.

The March 2025, with the Decision 024/2025, the Municipal Committee approved additional remuneration lawyer, bringing the total cost to 700 euros plus VAT, confirming that the legal claim for the return of the property was in full swing. Indeed, on July 17, 2025, a relevant decision was issued which, according to information, was registered with the Municipality of Kythira with a two-month delay.

Recently, the autumn of 2025, the «All Together, Kythira–Antikythira» faction submitted a series of requests and letters to the Municipality, requesting:

the notification of the court decision,
full information on the progress of the case and
transparency regarding the non-transfer of the property to the highest bidder.

The case of the Old Museum thus comes to a clear conclusion:

there is active bidder with a legal decision, there is court order to remove the previous user, and in between is recorded administrative inertia, with the property remaining undeveloped.

Minority municipal councillors complained about a lack of transparency and delays, especially since Mr. Kominos is the current deputy mayor and a member of the Municipal Committee.

Questions are also being raised as to why immediate extradition was not ordered. copy of the decision to the members of the Municipal Committee, while the issue of the failure to discuss the matter at subsequent meetings of the Committee is also raised.

According to exclusive information from Kythera.News, the The main opposition party has appealed to the Piraeus Court of First Instance regarding the case. exposing all aspects of management by municipal services and elected bodies.

The Mastoris case: the «Filothei» property»

At the same time, along with the case of the «Old Museum,» the Municipal Committee received the case of Mr. Kostas Mastoris, tenant of the municipal property «Filothei.» The municipal property «Filothei,» known as «Koukos,» was leased in 2008 following an auction held by the Municipality of Kythira. Mr. Mastoris was selected as the tenant and took over the operation of the space as a health-related store for a number of years.

In September 2024, after being informed that Mr. Charalakis will submit an appeal against him to the Municipal Committee, the tenant declares in the Municipality's protocol that the rent has been paid in full up to September 21, 2024, that his remaining debts are being settled and that he intends to vacate the property and hand over the keys to the municipality. The above financial data are also confirmed by the Municipal Committee. However, the question is reasonable: Why, ultimately, at that moment in September, would the municipality decide to turn against the tenant?;

This decision is implemented on May 2025, with an 8-month delay(!), without, as it appears, any prior response to the former employee or other communication, when the Municipality decided to turn against him. The lawsuit sought, on the one hand, the rental yield and, on the other hand, the payment compensation for non-contractual use (which essentially results from the delay in the execution of the decision by the Municipality) for the period from September 22, 2024 to May 21, 2025, i.e. for a «dead» period during which the employee had left. It should be noted that, according to the relevant documents, the total rent for the eight months does not exceed €826.14., much lower than the cost of court fees and lawyers' fees themselves!

The lawsuit was discussed in Piraeus Court of First Instance on September 29, 2025 and the decision is expected to shed light on the questions arising from the Administration's actions, as recorded at least in the relevant official documents.

The Syrmali case

The case concerns municipal property of the Pantelis Kasimatis bequest in Frilingianika, Kythira, which was leased in 2005 by the Municipality of Kythira to Georgios Syrmalis of Nikolaos for use as a technical office and residence. The lease was for a period of five years (2006–2010), with a special clause allowing rent to be offset by repair work up to a value of €15,000.

According to the Municipality, after the expiration of both the contractual and the minimum legal twelve-year lease term, the property was not returned, and no rent or compensation for non-contractual use was paid for the subsequent period. It seems that the Municipality, elected officials, and civil servants were a little slow to deal with this particular property (or perhaps this applies to all of the Municipality's private property, bequests, etc.). Thus, in March 20, 2025, the Municipal Committee approved the assignment of an opinion to a lawyer in Athens in order to examine the necessity exercise of legal action for the payment of rent and the recovery of debts.

It should be noted that, according to the chronology of events, the case came before the Municipal Committee a few days after the acute public confrontation that erupted in March 2025 between Georgios Syrmalis and the president of the Kythira Domestic Property Committee, Mr. Evangelos Venardos.

A few months later, on June 23, 2025, by decision of the Municipal Committee, a second lawyer was assigned to filing a lawsuit against the tenant, both for the performance of the property and for the payment of rent and compensation for use.

The case is now being brought before the courts, with the Municipality of Kythira claiming the return of the property and financial compensation, while the other side's position is awaited at the judicial stage.

Common thread: delayed actions and choices that raise questions

The choice of legal proceedings—rather than the faster option of a wage payment order—is a common feature of all cases.

Although the three cases concern different properties and different individuals, they share a striking common pattern:

The tenants are accused by the municipality of remaining in the properties without a valid contract.
However, he did not choose the legally prescribed fastest route: the order to pay rent, which is issued without trial, within days.
Instead, it followed the slower and more expensive process of litigation.

This choice, combined with delays in registering court decisions and informing elected officials, creates an environment of accountability difficulties and insufficient transparency.

What does the law say about the termination of leases and the immediate return of municipal property?

Greek legislation on property leases—both private and municipal—provides a very clear and swift framework for the owner when the lease expires and the tenant does not return the property. The main tool available to the owner (and therefore the municipality) is Order for Payment of Rent, a process regulated by Articles 637–645 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).

1. What is a Rent Payment Order?

This is a court decision issued without trial, at the request of the owner, when:

the lease has expired,
the tenant has not returned the property,
there is a written contract or documents proving the termination,
has preceded extrajudicial summons for withdrawal.

This process is extremely fast:

the decision will be issued in a few days, not in months or years.

2. Return of rent without a new trial

Once the order has been issued, the tenant must vacate the property immediately.

If it does not, it is provided that compulsory enforcement, i.e. eviction by a bailiff.

This means that the Municipality could, in all the cases examined, achieve immediate return on the properties through this process.

3. How does Rent Performance Law differ?

The lawsuit—which the Municipality chose in all cases—is:

slower (discussion after months, possible postponements, decision issued even later),
more expensive (attorney's fees, representation expenses),
less effective for the owner, since a full court proceeding is required.

The crucial question that remains unanswered is why the Municipality of Kythira did not proceed with the order for payment of rent from the outset, the procedure expressly provided for by law in cases of lease termination and non-return of property. This is a quick, clear, and low-cost solution that would lead to the immediate return of municipal property and prevent years of pending issues. The systematic failure to choose this option cannot be considered a simple oversight.

On the contrary, choosing to go to court causes delays, «dead time,» and increased costs. In this scenario, the only ones who consistently benefit are the lawyers, while the Municipality loses money—from uncollected rents, delayed compensation, and increased legal costs. There is no convincing administrative or financial justification for this strategy, especially when the leases had expired and the conditions of the law were met.

So, let us just say this: The municipal government's stance is institutionally flawed. Not because it chose a legal route, but because chose the slower and more expensive option, leaving municipal properties unused and allowing the damage to accumulate. When elected officials are involved, avoiding immediate action raises reasonable questions. In any case, the result is the same: financial damage to the municipality and undermining of public trust.