Seismic risk in some regions of Greece has increased over the last decades. The reason lies in urban development in earthquake prone regions, combined with a lack of ability or interest to tackle known construction vulnerabilities of buildings. Despite the severity of risk, also confirmed by recent events, homeowners have proven unwilling to mitigate seismic risk, possibly because of their inability to pay and/or unwillingness to invest due to lack of information or awareness. As a result, significant part of the building stock remains unsafe, in comparison with the safety level of the current building code. A way to stimulate seismic risk mitigation is government intervention. Such intervention could consist of a safety plan (retrofit program, mandatory insurance, emergency planning etc.) implemented by government, subsidies, introduction of more stringent building codes, risk communication. Recent developments in Greece regarding seismic safety are mostly aimed at vulnerability and risk evaluation, the publishing of a technical building Code of Interventions, and mapping out a seismic safety plan for Greece. Meanwhile, experts ask for government intervention proposing organisational change and a distribution of roles / liabilities among different clusters. For every scheme of government program, risk estimation is vital to be able to set priorities and decide whether buildings, municipalities, or regions are safe enough. Besides economic risks, risks to life should also be considered. Instruments for quantifying fatality risks are however unavailable at present. A review of the cornerstones of Dutch flood risk management practices, especially in risk estimation and decision-making has shown that fatality risks are considered from a societal perspective and an individual one. The societal risk metric concerns the (exceedance) probabilities of larger numbers of fatalities; the individual risk metric concerns the probability of death of a person at a specific location. In the case of the Netherlands, due to the nature of the flood hazard and protection scheme (public flood defences), the government is strongly involved in flood risk mitigation. Despite differences between the protection schemes for large-scale floods (strengthening dikes rather than protecting buildings) and earthquakes (strengthening buildings), this project proposes the translation (=the act of converting) of aforementioned metrics to the case of seismic risk in Greece. To quantify those metrics for earthquakes requires knowledge of the probabilities of different hazard levels (peak ground accelerations), the extent of damage on buildings given the hazard, and the expected number of fatalities in case of damage given the extent of damage. In this study, societal risk (depicted by FN-curves) and individual risk levels are quantified using exceedance probability function of peak ground acceleration at the site under Seismic Risk Mitigation in Greece Translation of Dutch Flood Risk Management Practices consideration, as well as deterministic transfer functions for damage (vulnerability curves) and losses (mortality curves). Moreover, since economic losses of earthquakes can also be significant, societal economic risk (FL-curve) and individual economic risk are also proposed and quantified. Using recent research results about the vulnerability of buildings, inventory data for social economic characteristics and reasonable assumptions about missing information (like building size); risk can be estimated for existing and retrofitted building stocks of Greek municipalities. After sensitivity analysis of model parameters, two case studies are presented that show the use of the aforementioned risk metrics for different levels of government decision-making. One simulating top level (central government) decision making, setting priorities for retrofit between municipalities, and the second simulating medium level (local government) decision making, setting priorities for a retrofit program between different structural typologies of buildings. The case studies show that the risk metrics and the model to quantify them can be useful tools for deciding which municipality should absorb more resources, whether mitigation is urgent, which mitigation strategy is most efficient, and how alternative retrofit programs influence risk levels. Of course, the model is only a prototype further refinements are advised. There are important benefits from the implementation of the described methodology. Firstly, the decision maker only deals with probabilities and consequences, has a general overview thus he/she may distribute resources and time in a more (cost) effective way. Moreover, human life is distinguished from cost-benefit analysis (no monetization). Events with high numbers of fatalities, which can cause disruption to the whole of the country, as well as disproportional individual exposures, can be targeted directly. Finally, it gives the opportunity to monitor the progress of a safety plan, and is scalable for central and local administration. This study concludes by proposing the application of societal & individual risk metrics (for fatalities and economic loss) to support two levels (central and local) of government decision making concerning seismic risk mitigation in Greece. Furthermore, it provides a prototype model for the quantification of these metrics. Finally, this thesis proposes directions for further research, the most important being research about the costs of alternative retrofit programs, which is necessary for the debate about appropriate (efficient/feasible) societal & individual risk acceptance criteria.