From the provisions of Articles 297, 298, 300, 330(b) and 914 of the Civil Code, it follows that tortious liability for compensation presupposes unlawful and culpable conduct, the occurrence of damage, and a causal link between the perpetrator's conduct and the damage. Unlawful conduct is conduct that contravenes a prohibitive or mandatory rule of law which confers a right or protects a specific interest of the injured party, and such conduct may consist of a positive action or an omission to perform a certain action. Negligence is also a form of fault, which exists when the care required in transactions is not exercised, i.e. the diligence that, if exercised, measured by the conduct of a reasonably prudent and diligent person in the sphere of activity of the person who caused the damage, would have made it possible to prevent the unlawful and damaging result. A causal link exists when the unlawful and culpable conduct of the perpetrator was, according to the teachings of common experience, capable, in the normal and ordinary course of events, of causing the damage and did cause it in the specific case. The above also applies in the case of Article 10 of Law GPN/1911 regarding the fault of drivers of colliding vehicles, according to which the provision of Article 914 of the Civil Code is applicable. Furthermore, violation of the provisions of the Highway Code does not in itself constitute fault in the occurrence of a car accident, but it is an element to be weighed by the court of first instance in relation to the existence of a causal link between the specific act and the result that occurred.

Based on the legal framework of EU Directive 2000/26/EC, a person who has been injured in an accident abroad may claim compensation for material damage or bodily injury based on the legislation of the country where the accident occurred, when they return to their place of permanent residence, in their own language and through procedures with which they are familiar. The International Insurance Office (9 Xenofontos Street, 10557 Athens, tel. 210 3236562 – email compbody@mib-hellas.gr) and the Auxiliary Fund N.P.I.D. (5 Ypatia Street, 10557 Athens – tel. 210 3327490 – email: i.c@epikef.gr) has been designated as the information center. Furthermore, in accordance with the EU Directive, each insurance company was required to appoint a Claims Representative in each EU country to settle their claims. All Claims Representatives of the companies are registered with the respective Information Centers, which interested parties can contact in order to find out who the claims representative is for the insurance company that insured the vehicle that caused them damage. However, for the provisions of the 4th Directive and Presidential Decree 10/2003 to apply, liability must be indisputable and no lawsuit must have been filed against the insurance company of the vehicle at fault. The injured party must submit a claim for compensation at their place of residence, to the insurance company of the vehicle that caused the accident or to the Claims Representative, who will be informed by the Information Center. The claims representatives of foreign insurance companies in Greece under the 4th Directive are listed on the website of the Greek Information Center. If, within three months, the injured party does not receive a reasoned reply or there is no Claims Representative, then he/she submits an application to the Compensation Body of the country where he/she resides and, after a period of two months, that body shall settle the claim in accordance with the law of the country of the accident and pay compensation, if required to do so. Furthermore, the injured party does not have the right to sue the Compensation Body in court under the provisions of the 4th Directive or Presidential Decree 10/2003. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Compensation Body is also responsible for compensating injured parties who reside in an EU country and have suffered damage in another Member State: from a vehicle whose identity cannot be identified,in cases where the identity of the insurance company of the vehicle that caused the accident cannot be established,in cases of uninsured vehicles from third countries whose National Bureau of Motor Insurers has joined the Green Card system.

A floor or apartment is the part of a building or floor, together with its components and the cubic space within it, which is technically enclosed by walls or other building elements so as to be clearly separated from the other (divisible or indivisible) parts of the building and thus constitutes an independent part of it, suitable for separate and independent residential use in general. Only floors and floor apartments, as well as basements and rooms under the roof that are equated with floors by law, may be subject to horizontal ownership. Therefore, it is not possible to establish divided ownership of open space, unless provided for in the (registered) constitutive act or on the basis of (registered) subsequent agreement of all parties that this space is to be rebuilt by granting an independent right of ownership over the future floor or floors, in which case the establishment of divided ownership refers to the future floors or floor apartments and is subject to Article 201 of the Civil Code, under the suspensive condition of their construction. Until the right to build on the existing roof of the building is exercised, it remains a common area which provides the right of joint use to all floor owners and in no case does the right of elevation grant the beneficiary the power of exclusive use of the uncovered roof prior to the covering of the uncovered area for the realization of the future floor. With the implementation of the right to build upwards (addition of a floor), the new floor becomes the exclusive property, possession, and ownership of the beneficiary of the extension, along with the corresponding percentage of compulsory co-ownership of the land and other common and shared parts of the building. The right to extend the building upwards (height) by adding new floors belongs jointly to all co-owners of the land. The space intended for reconstruction is not characterized as an object of ownership but as an exploitable asset for the exercise of the right of extension (height), which is provided as a consequence of the powers arising from the right of ownership or co-ownership. It may be agreed in the deed of establishment of floor ownership that the right of height belongs to one or more of the co-owners of the land, but even in this case, the right of height appears as a consequence of the existing right of co-ownership, otherwise it is a power inherent in the right of co-ownership of the beneficiary on the land. Thus, this specific right is not understood as a right of ownership but as a power of all or some of the co-owners, as agreed by the parties, deriving from their right of ownership or co-ownership of the land on which the existing building stands. This right (of extension), which is transferable to a third party who is not a floor owner, is autonomous and independent of the existing horizontal properties.

According to the provisions of Article 932 of the Civil Code, "in the event of a tort, regardless of compensation for property damage, the court may award reasonable monetary compensation, at its discretion, for moral damages. This applies in particular to those who have suffered damage to their health, honor, or chastity, or who have been deprived of their liberty...". It follows from the above provision that in the event of an attack on a person's health, the person entitled to claim monetary compensation is the person who has directly suffered the moral damage against whom the tort is directed (AP 648/2002 EllDk 2002.1616). Such a person is the holder of the legal right that was infringed (e.g. the owner of the damaged car, the person injured as a result of a car accident) or another person who is the holder of a contractual right that is protected against tort under Article 914 of the Civil Code (e.g., a tenant, a user) (see Kritikos, Compensation for Motor Vehicle Accidents, 1998 edition, p. 330, no. 945, EfDod 212/2004 Dim. NOMOS). Exceptionally, in the event of death, the beneficiaries are the persons belonging to the victim's family. Third parties are not entitled by law to monetary compensation, even if they suffer emotional distress due to a close family relationship or other close connection. However, rigid application of this principle can lead to cruelty. For this reason, in cases of serious physical injury to the face resulting in the loss of important bodily functions, as a result of which the person is considered to be in a "vegetative state" to such an extent that they are close to death, third parties (relatives) are also recognised as having a claim for financial compensation for moral damage. Such well-known cases include the serious injury of a child, as a result of which he or she falls into a state of unconsciousness, and the case of the inability of the person (spouse) to have sexual intercourse or procreate. In such cases, a claim for monetary compensation for moral damage is recognized for the child's parents and the spouse of the injured person (but also for the person who has become incapacitated). Here, the case is different when the serious injury of the minor child occurs in front of his mother, who suffers a nervous breakdown and is forced to be hospitalized in a neurological clinic. This is considered to be physical injury to the mother herself, i.e., a wrongful act committed against her. Consequently, she also suffers moral damage and is entitled, in principle, to monetary compensation (see relevant Ath, Kritikos, Compensation from motor vehicle accidents, 1998 edition, p. 332). In general, however, according to prevailing case law and theory, third parties are not entitled by law to monetary compensation, even if they were involved in the accident but did not suffer physical injury, unless the circumstances of the accident were such that they suffered physical injury, even in the form of psychological shock, in which case they are considered to be victims of the tort and are entitled to monetary compensation for moral damage (see Ath. Kritikos, op. cit., p. 330 ff. and decision no. 5665/2009 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus, A' PUBLICATION LAW, CASE 2010/48). In such cases, these are referred to as "Shockschaden" (shock damage), in which it is possible to recognize a right to monetary compensation for moral damage and any other violation of the personality of a third party that affects the feelings of affection of another, if the act is unlawful also vis-à-vis third parties and if the causal link also covers these emotional effects. In such cases of serious offenses against a third party, according to the most correct view, it is considered that Article 932(3) of the Civil Code should be applied by analogy (see Styl. Paterakis, "Financial Compensation for Moral Damage," 2nd edition, 2011, p. 92).

It is well known that due to the crisis, many properties are now being offered at very low prices. However, the purchase of any property (residential, commercial, land, agricultural) involves risks that buyers are often unaware of, resulting in unfavorable purchases or the acquisition of "problematic" properties with legal defects. Proper legal advice on the purchase of real estate is crucial in order to protect the prospective buyer. The legal check includes research in the land registry and cadastre of the location of the property, in order to verify the legality and correct registration of the title or titles of ownership of the property (contracts), any third-party claims or encumbrances (e.g., when purchasing a plot of land or farmland, part of it may have to be ceded as a right of way to a neighboring property, etc.). It is particularly important to carefully research the property to be purchased in advance, in order to examine: A) Whether the property is unauthorized, whether the building permit corresponds to its actual area, or whether there are any exceedances in its declared area. B) Whether the property has a mortgage or mortgage lien. C) Whether the property is claimed by a third party or bank. D) Whether the property has been correctly declared in the land registry where required. E) Whether the title deeds (contracts) of the property correspond to its actual status. Furthermore, in cases where the property is to be purchased with a loan, the presence of a lawyer throughout the sale is considered necessary in order to examine both the buyer's financing terms and compliance with the correct procedure during the notarial transfer. However, apart from purchasing a property with a loan, it is also common to purchase a property that has a mortgage or a mortgage pre-notation. In such cases, in order for the buyer to acquire the property free of encumbrances, a written agreement must be drawn up to secure the transaction. In addition, it must be thoroughly verified that the debt to be repaid or offset against the purchase price corresponds to the debt encumbering the property with a pre-notation or mortgage.

The Single-Member Court of First Instance (MPrileias 139/2021) dismissed as unfounded the appeal of the Single Social Security Agency as the quasi-universal successor to the Social Security Institution. The appellant, arguing that, for the benefits due for partial disability as a result of an injury sustained by its insured person in a traffic accident, it was subrogated by law to the latter's claim for compensation against the party that caused the injury, requested the payment of partial disability, main and supplementary pension benefits on behalf of the liable party. According to the provisions of Article 10(5) of Legislative Decree 4104/1960, as replaced by Article 18(1) of Law 4476/1965 and Article 18 of Legislative Decree 1654/1986, it follows that IKA, for insurance benefits owed to insured persons who are entitled to compensation for damage caused to them due to illness, disability or, as in this case, injury, is subrogated by law to the amount of insurance benefits owed to the injured party in the latter's claim against the injuring party. This subrogation occurs by operation of law and dates back to the time when the damage occurred. With regard to the issue of extending the limitation period for the appellant's claims, the court ruled that, since the damage suffered by the victim was foreseeable in the normal course of events from the outset, the appellant's claim for compensation for all damages, actual and consequential, present or future, arose as soon as the damaging event, i.e. the accident and injury, occurred. In particular, the court found that the insured's state of health due to the accident and his resulting inability to work during the period in question was foreseeable from the outset in the normal course of events. No evidence was presented, nor did the appellant claim, that, apart from the insured person's initial serious injury, there were any further complications with his health that constituted an unexpected development of the situation and justified a new limitation period starting from the time when the consequences in question appeared. It pointed out that the decisions of the Director of the Social Security Institution, which extended the insured person's ordinary and partial disability pension due to the accident in question for the period in question, are relevant for determining the final amount of the claim transferred to the appellant by the injured insured person and do not constitute a condition for the origin of the appellant's claim in the first place. The opposite view, according to which the origin of the appellant's claim for compensation against the liable party depends on the issuance of a decision by the competent body of the Social Security Institution (IKA), would be contrary to Article 18 of Law 1456/1986, which links the transfer of the injured party's claim for compensation to the origin of the claim, and would also postpone the start of the limitation period, linking it to an act (the issuance of an act by the competent body of the Social Security Institution) that falls within the sphere of influence of the creditor itself, with the result that, in essence, the limitation period is extended to the detriment of the debtor.

According to the provisions of the Civil Code, it follows that owners of horizontal properties are allowed to regulate the use of the common areas and common property of the co-ownership and to determine the percentage of each horizontal property's share in the common expenses thereof, even if there are regulations governing these, provided that the relevant decision is taken unanimously by the co-owners.

In disputes arising from traffic accidents, a frequently requested and financially significant claim is the claim for compensation for improved nutrition. This claim falls within the conceptual content of medical expenses, i.e., the expenses that were or will be necessary in the future for the salvation and restoration of the victim's health, regardless of whether the latter actually incurred them. is included in the petition of most related lawsuits, but in order for it to be adjudicated, detailed information and data must be presented to substantiate it, and certain conditions must be met.

When it comes to correcting an initial registration marked "unknown owner" and the beneficiary invokes adverse possession as the title of acquisition, the beneficiary's lawsuit is directed against the Greek State. According to the provisions in force regarding the operation of the land registry, in the case of an inaccurate initial registration, an action may be brought before the competent court in terms of subject matter and location, seeking the recognition of the right infringed by the inaccurate registration and the correction, in whole or in part, of the initial registration. The action may be either declaratory or assertive and may be brought by any person with a legal interest, within an exclusive period of five (5) years from the publication of the decision of the Land Registry Agency in the Government Gazette. By way of exception, in the case of a correction of an initial registration marked "unknown owner" and where the beneficiary invokes adverse possession as a title of acquisition, the action is brought against the Greek State, which is considered to be the owner of the properties marked "UNKNOWN OWNER" as soon as the first document becomes final. In particular, in a case examined by the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Larissa, in a lawsuit against the Greek State, the plaintiff, who was the owner of an apartment listed in the land registry as "unknown owner," sought recognition of his ownership, which arose from extraordinary adverse possession of 20 years or more. Specifically, he resided in this property without a regular contract, but only with a preliminary sales agreement, and since then he has exercised acts of ownership and possession, with the intention of being the owner, for a period of more than 20 years, without ever being disturbed by anyone. He claimed that, due to an oversight, when registering the property in the relevant book of the Land Registry Office of L., the property in question was registered as "owner unknown," and he requested in the lawsuit under consideration a) recognition that he is the owner of the disputed property and b) that the first registration of the disputed apartment with the indication "unknown owner" be corrected so that the plaintiff is listed as the owner, with his title of acquisition being extraordinary adverse possession. The court examined the admissibility of the claims in the lawsuit, noting that a summary of the lawsuit had been duly registered in the land registry of the competent Land Registry Office in L. but did not consider it necessary to produce an ENFIA certificate (Law 4223/2013), since, in its opinion, the provision establishing the inadmissibility of the lawsuit if the ENFIA certificate is not produced by the litigant violates and is in direct conflict with the provision of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the provisions of Articles 17, 20, and 25 of the Constitution (property rights, the right to legal protection, and the principle of proportionality), on the grounds that it is not possible for a purely tax provision, which does not concern the protection of parties to real estate transactions or seek to provide judicial protection, to constitute a specific procedural requirement for a real action and a prerequisite for a decision on the merits to be issued, since the objective of the proceedings must always be to issue a decision on the merits and the procedural requirements must be intended to ensure the smooth and unimpeded flow of the proceedings and to guarantee a correct judicial decision. The Court rejected the State's objection that the property had become its property "as an unknown owner," since, according to Article 4(b) of Law 3127/2003, in settlements that existed prior to 1923, adverse possession against the State is possible, provided that, until the entry into force of this law, i.e. until 2003, the beneficiary had been in undisturbed possession of the property for 10 years and had legal title himself or through his assignors. Thus, the action was upheld and a) the plaintiff's right of ownership of the disputed apartment was recognized, and b) the correction of the first entry in the relevant Land Registry Sheet of the relevant Land Registry Office was ordered and the plaintiff was registered as the owner of the apartment.

Driving without a license is a very serious offense with both administrative (traffic fines) and criminal penalties, and in the event of an accident, the insurance company is obliged to compensate any third party who has suffered damage caused by a driver without a license. Therefore, the victim of a traffic accident always receives the compensation they are entitled to from the insurance company. However, the insurance company may then take action against the driver and the owner of the vehicle, claiming back any amount it has paid to the third party. The liability of a driver without a license is therefore unlimited. The owner of the vehicle is also liable. Specifically: According to the provisions of Article 4 of Law GPN/1911, "for any damage caused to third parties by the operation of the vehicle, the driver and the owner, as defined in Article 2, are liable for compensation, and the owner in this case is another person, or the owner is liable only up to the value of the car, which he may, at the discretion of the court, transfer to the injured party and be exempt from any other compensation...". It follows from the above provision that, because the liability of the owner of the vehicle causing the damage is established regardless of whether he is the driver or owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident (objective liability), in order to mitigate the severity of the objective liability of the owner, who is not the keeper or driver, the law limits his liability to the value of the vehicle causing the damage immediately prior to the accident. This limitation of liability takes the form of an objection based on the fact that the owner of the car is not also its keeper or driver.