According to Article 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for illegal acts or omissions of public authorities in the exercise of the public power entrusted to them, the State is liable for compensation, unless the act or omission was in violation of a provision that exists for the sake of the general interest. The person responsible is jointly and severally liable with the State, subject to the specific provisions on the liability of ministers.
A special case of civil liability of the State, which has been addressed in the past by case law, is the failure to maintain the necessary distances between advertising signs and main roads. Specifically, the law stipulates that any advertising by any means and in any manner is prohibited on sections of designated national and provincial roads or motorways outside residential areas and in a zone of up to one hundred and fifty (150) meters on both sides of the axis of these roads and visible to users. At the same time, it is generally prohibited to place signs or advertisements or to install any sign, posters, markings, or devices in a position or manner that may have any negative impact on road users or affect traffic in any way. In particular, it is prohibited to place or install the above in such positions that obstructs the view of vertical signs or traffic lights or creates confusion with traffic signs or road markings or other traffic control devices or makes them less visible or effective or cause glare to road users and generally distract their attention in a way that may have an adverse effect on road safety in general. If such a sign is installed, the competent authorities are obliged to remove it.
In a memorable decision, the Court examined the above issue and ordered the State to pay compensation due to the failure of the competent authorities to remove an advertising sign that had been illegally placed near the axis of the New National Road Corinth -Patras, resulting in a passing vehicle colliding with the concrete base of the advertising sign. According to the Court, the death of the aforementioned person was causally linked to the above omission by the authorities of the defendant Greek State, because if the latter had duly removed the sign in question, the vehicle would not have collided with the illegally placed sign. Finally, the Court ruled that, according to the law, there should have been a safety barrier at the point in question, which was not the case. In essence, the defendant Greek State acted unlawfully – by omission – because it did not remove the illegal EXPRESS SERVICE advertising sign and because it did not install a safety barrier in the same area, as it should have done and could have done.
