Victims of traffic accidents can now claim monetary compensation without any limit, according to Decision 3/2019 of the Plenary Session of the Hellenic Supreme Court (Areios Pagos), which ruled that any restriction on liability for compensation in cases of bodily injury from traffic accidents is unconstitutional and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Specifically, Decision 3/2019 held that the provision of Law 4092/2012, which limited compensation for traffic accidents to a certain percentage of full compensation and set a maximum amount of €100,000, violates the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR.
Among other things, the Court emphasized that Article 4 of Law 4092/2012 drastically restricts victims’ civil right to full redress and monetary satisfaction for moral and physical harm caused by a traffic accident.
Consequently, this limitation is incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, as it unjustifiably deprives victims of property without any overriding public interest. The mere financial interest of the Supplementary Fund, which the law sought to protect, does not constitute a sufficient public purpose to justify this deprivation. According to the explanatory report of Law 4092/2012, the law aimed to ensure the smooth operation of the Supplementary Fund and the balancing of its obligations without jeopardizing its financial position due to its specific supportive function.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the limitation to a maximum of €100,000 and a percentage of full compensation also violates the principle of proportionality (Article 25(1) of the Constitution). The legislature’s intervention is neither suitable nor necessary to achieve its goal—ensuring the Fund’s financial sustainability—since the same result could be achieved without cost to traffic accident victims. Alternative measures include:
- Improving the Fund’s financial management;
- Increasing revenues and reducing operational costs;
- Supervising and effectively controlling insurance companies;
- Minimizing vehicles circulating without third-party liability insurance coverage.
Key Points from the Supreme Court Decision (Plenary Session, No. 3/2019)
- Article 25(1) of the Constitution establishes that any restriction on individual rights must comply with the principle of proportionality. This principle requires that restrictions be:
- Appropriate – capable of achieving the intended purpose;
- Necessary – the least restrictive measure possible;
- Strictly proportionate – the expected benefit must not be outweighed by the harm caused.
- Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, ratified in Greece by Law 53/1974, guarantees respect for individuals’ property, which may only be deprived for public purposes under conditions prescribed by law. This includes all property rights, including civil claims and financial interests, whether legally recognized by court or arising under national law, as long as there is a legitimate expectation of judicial satisfaction.
- The provision of Law 4092/2012, limiting compensation for bodily injuries in traffic accidents to a maximum of €100,000, violates the constitutional and ECHR protections of property. It unjustifiably deprives victims of full compensation for both material and moral damages. The Court explicitly stated that financial considerations of the Supplementary Fund do not justify this limitation.
In conclusion, victims of traffic accidents in Greece are now entitled to full compensation for bodily injury, without statutory caps or percentage limits, ensuring both the restoration of actual damages and satisfaction for moral harm.
