According to the provisions of Articles 592 and 594 of the Civil Code, respectively "The lessee is not liable for damage or changes due to the agreed use" and "The lessor has the right to immediately terminate the lease and at the same time claim compensation if the lessee, despite the lessor's protests, does not treat the leased property with care and as agreed or does not behave appropriately towards other tenants." The agreed use is determined by the interpretation of the contract (Civil Code 173, 200, 281, 288). Any arbitrary change constitutes misuse, regardless of whether or not it results in the deterioration of the leased property. If the lessee fails to fulfill their obligation to make good use of the leased property, i.e., misuses it, the lessor may exercise their legal rights against the lessee. In particular, they are entitled to: 1) demand proper and appropriate fulfillment, i.e., cessation and omission in the future, 2) terminate the lease immediately, without notice, if, despite his protests, the lessee continues to misuse the leased property, and 3) to claim compensation regardless of whether or not he has exercised his right of termination. A prerequisite for termination is the prior complaint of the lessor and not necessarily multiple successive complaints. With regard to the question of whether the construction of unauthorized buildings constitutes misuse, the Supreme Court ruled in its decision No. 739/2008 that: "negligent treatment of the leased property constitutes both the destruction of parts, components, or accessories of the leased property, as well as any damage to them or any unauthorized intervention by the lessee, without the consent of the lessor, intervention by the lessee, as a result of which the general and specific configuration, layout, and appearance of the leased property, which have been created and intended by the lessor to serve his economic purpose, are substantially altered. According to the provisions of Articles 587 and 599 of the Civil Code, termination of the lease for misuse of the leased property results in the termination of the contract for the future and the obligation of the lessee to return the leased property to the lessor. Consequently, the construction of unauthorized buildings also constitutes misuse of the leased property, and the lessor may terminate the lease and claim compensation or fulfillment of the contract.

According to decision no. 1815/2019 of the Athens Court of First Instance, it was ruled that the partner of a deceased person with whom he was in a free union and had children is entitled to receive reasonable financial compensation for emotional distress under Article 932(c) of the Civil Code. 1. WHO IS COVERED BY THE TERM "FAMILY" As pointed out in detail in the decision, the above provision of the Civil Code aims to protect not only persons who are closely related to the deceased in a traffic accident in accordance with the provisions of Family Law (spouse in a religious or civil marriage, children, siblings, parents, etc.), but also those whose psyche is equally emotionally affected by the loss of their loved one. This category of persons also includes the partner of the deceased if they lived together in a free union and had children. Moreover, based on contemporary social perceptions, the traditional concept of married cohabitation no longer seems to be the exclusive form of family formation, while new forms of family have undoubtedly been created with equally strong emotional ties without the legal framework that was previously necessary. RELEVANT DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgments in Saucedo Gomez v. Spain (1999) and Korosidou v. Greece (2011), recognized that the cohabitation of two persons for a long period of time without marriage constitutes "family life" within the meaning and with the increased value expressly attributed to it by the European Convention on Human Rights. In any case, of course, the existence of a strong or weak emotional bond with the deceased is a real issue and is judged on a case-by-case basis by the court. The "innovation" of this particular decision is the broadening of the circle of persons belonging to the term "family." The court has the power to decide that, in addition to the closest relatives of the deceased, other persons connected by feelings of love, strong friendship, and affection with the deceased, regardless of whether they lived with him or not. The establishment of a right to compensation for persons other than the close relatives of the victim makes the judge's work more difficult and, in any case, exacerbates the dispute between persons claiming "monetary satisfaction for mental anguish," since the more persons establish such a claim, the smaller the amount that will ultimately be awarded to each of them. CONCLUSION We could conclude, in conclusion, that the criteria that the judge must take into account in combination when deciding on the inclusion of a person who is not related to the deceased by any of the traditional forms of kinship provided for in the Civil Code are the duration of the relationship between the deceased with the person seeking financial compensation, cohabitation, the birth of children, and any other fact which, in the judge's opinion, is capable of linking the beneficiary of financial compensation and the victim with strong feelings of love and trust.

According to the law, the partner of a deceased person with whom they were in a free union and had children is entitled to receive reasonable financial compensation for emotional distress under Article 932(c) of the Civil Code (Decision 1815/2019 MPA). As pointed out in detail in the decision, the above provision of the Civil Code aims to protect not only persons who are closely related to the deceased in a traffic accident in accordance with the provisions of Family Law (spouse in a religious or civil marriage, children, siblings, parents, etc.), but also those whose psyche is equally emotionally affected by the loss of their loved one. This category of persons also includes the partner of the deceased if they lived together in a free union and had children. Moreover, based on contemporary social perceptions, the traditional concept of married cohabitation no longer seems to be the exclusive form of family formation, while new forms of family have undoubtedly been created with equally strong emotional ties without the legal framework that was previously necessary. A direct consequence of the above social change is the tendency of Greek lawmakers in recent years to move away from the narrow conservative assumption that families can only be formed through religious or civil marriage, following the example of other European countries. in recent years to definitively move away from the narrow conservative assumption that a family can only be formed through religious or civil marriage, following the example of almost all European legal systems. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has also ruled in the cases of Saucedo Gomez v. Spain (1999) and Korosidou v. Greece (2011), in which it recognised that the cohabitation of two persons for a long period of time without marriage means the existence of 'family life' within the meaning and with the increased value expressly attributed to it by the European Convention on Human Rights. In any case, of course, the existence of a strong or weak emotional bond with the deceased is a real issue and is juSo, "innovation" is basically expanding the circle of people who are part of the family. The court has the power to decide that, in addition to the closest relatives of the deceased, other persons connected by feelings of love, strong friendship, and affection with the deceased, regardless of whether they lived with him or not. Establishing the right to compensation for persons other than the victim's close relatives makes the judge's job more difficult and, in any case, exacerbates the dispute between persons claiming "monetary satisfaction for mental anguish," since the more persons establish such a claim, the smaller the amount that will ultimately be awarded to each of them. In conclusion, the criteria that the judge must take into account in combination when deciding on the inclusion of a person who is not related to the deceased by any of the traditional forms of kinship provided for in the Civil Code are the duration of the relationship the deceased with the person claiming financial compensation, cohabitation, the birth of children, and any other fact which, in the judge's opinion, is capable of linking the beneficiary of financial compensation and the victim with strong feelings of love and trust.dged on a case-by-case basis by the court.

A contractual clause excluding from insurance coverage a driver who was under the influence of alcohol, included in a voluntary motor insurance contract for the driver’s personal accident, is invalid and impermissible under Articles 33(1) and 7(5) of Law 2496/1997. The Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) held as invalid the contractual clause limiting the insurer’s liability, contained in a voluntary motor insurance policy for the driver’s personal accident, which excluded insurance coverage in cases where the insured driver was, at the time the risk materialized, under the influence of alcohol (Supreme Court Decision 181/2022).

The Patras Single-Member Court of Appeal rejected, with decision 121/2019, the Greek State's appeal against a first-instance decision ordering it to pay the plaintiff a total amount of €7,830.52 plus legal interest, to compensate for material damage and moral harm suffered as a result of a traffic accident caused by a Greek Police service vehicle, the driver of which was found to be solely responsible for the accident. In particular, according to Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, "for unlawful acts or omissions of public authorities in the exercise of the public authority 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 shall be jointly and severally liable with the State, subject to the special provisions on the liability of ministers." The above liability of the Hellenic Republic is full, meaning that it covers both the actual damage and the loss of profits suffered by the injured administered party. In addition, by analogous application of Article 932 of the Greek Civil Code, monetary compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage suffered by the injured party may also be awarded. Such compensation is assessed solely in relation to the injured party himself or herself and not with regard to any relatives who may have suffered so-called “reflective” damage. Moreover, proof of fault on the part of the administrative organ whose unlawful act caused the damage to the administered party is not required; it suffices to establish the existence of an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of public authority and the causal link between that act or omission and the damage incurred. In the present case, the claimant, while driving her vehicle in full compliance with the law, wearing her seat belt and having a green traffic light on the lane in which she was travelling, collided at an intersection with a service vehicle of the Hellenic Police, which was travelling on the intersecting road. The said service vehicle entered the intersection despite the fact that the traffic light on its lane showed a red signal, a circumstance that resulted in the subsequent collision with the claimant’s vehicle. The police vehicle therefore acted unlawfully, in breach of the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Code, conduct which causally led to the harmful event, namely the collision of the two vehicles and the ensuing injury of the claimant. The defendant Hellenic Republic raised, at first instance, a plea of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in relation to the traffic accident; however, this plea was rejected on the basis of the above reasoning. The finding of exclusive liability of the Hellenic Republic was confirmed by the appellate court. The collision at issue resulted in the claimant’s inability to work for a period of approximately one and a half months due to the injuries she sustained and, consequently, in the loss of the income corresponding to that period (loss of profits). These amounts were awarded to her by the court of first instance, after deduction of the sum paid to the claimant by the competent social insurance bodies as sickness benefit. Furthermore, by analogous application of Article 932 of the Greek Civil Code, the claimant was awarded monetary compensation in the amount of €2,000 for the restoration of the moral damage she suffered as a result of the bodily injuries caused by the accident, as well as the subsequent lengthy rehabilitation process to which she was subjected following her discharge from hospital. In determining the amount of such compensation, the court took into account the circumstances under which the harmful event occurred, the age of the injured party, her financial situation, and the nature, extent, and severity of the injury. By contrast, and according to the court’s reasoning, the financial situation of the defendant Hellenic Republic does not in any way, either positively or negatively, affect the calculation of the amount of monetary compensation due. The appellate court concurred with the above findings concerning both the award of compensation for the damage suffered and the monetary compensation for the moral damage sustained by the claimant. Consequently, the appeal lodged by the Hellenic Republic was dismissed in its entirety, thereby confirming the injured party’s claim for compensation and moral damages arising from the traffic accident caused by a service vehicle of the Hellenic Police.

Passengers in a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident acquire rights as a result of their involvement in the accident and may claim significant compensation, depending on the circumstances and the factual and legal substantiation of their claim. First of all, the front-seat passenger and any other occupants bear no liability in the event of an accident, as they do not have control over the vehicle. They are entitled to compensation whether they are injured or not.

The purchase of real estate is a process that requires careful handling on the part of the buyer in order to avoid unpleasant consequences. The assistance of a lawyer specialized in real estate law, who will anticipate and identify all potential risks involved in the purchase of a property on behalf of their client, is essential. Key points a prospective property buyer should pay attention to are the following:

In the event of the death of their child in a road traffic accident, the parents may claim compensation either for deprivation of maintenance or for deprivation of the child’s services, provided that appropriate legal arguments and substantiation are presented. According to Greek law, a child who belongs to the household of their parents and is raised or maintained by them is obliged to provide services to their parents for the management of the household or the exercise of their profession, in proportion to the child’s abilities and the living conditions of both the child and the family.

When a lease is for a fixed term (and for as long as the minimum statutory lease period has not elapsed, that is, three years from its conclusion for urban leases of primary residences and for every commercial lease), the lessor cannot demand the immediate departure of the lessee from the leased property (urban or commercial) before the expiry of the lease. However, the lessor may “preventively” request that a court decision be issued which will be enforced as soon as the lease term has elapsed, if there are suspicions that the lessee will not vacate the leased property on the contractual expiry date. Thus, the lessor is permitted to bring an action for delivery of the leased property even before the lapse of the statutory or contractual duration of the lease (since Article 48 para. 2 of Presidential Decree 34/1995 expressly refers to Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure in every case of delivery of leased property). Nevertheless, the delivery of the property will be ordered for a time after the expiry of the lease. In examining the legality of such an action, the court applies the provision of Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided that, based on the facts set out in the statement of claim, the above conditions are met. It is not necessary for the claimant to expressly invoke this provision. Consequently, in the premature filing of an action for delivery of the leased property, it is not necessary to state explicitly that delivery is sought pursuant to Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is, that the action is brought subject to a suspensive time limit (the lapse of the contractual or statutory term). From the facts set out in the statement of claim, or in any case through the application of the law ex officio by the court, the operation of the termination will be regulated and its consequences and effects will be determined in accordance with statutory provisions. If, moreover, the action seeks delivery of the leased property at a time earlier than that which is determined as the expiry of the lease as described above, and that expiry time had not yet occurred at the time the action was brought, the action is lawful and admissible. The court will then order delivery of the leased property after the expiry of the lease. An incorrect determination by the claimant lessor of the legally applicable expiry time of the lease, depending on the period during which the lessee or the latter’s predecessors in title have been in possession of the leased property, resulting in the pursuit of delivery at an earlier time than that prescribed by law, does not render the action vague or prematurely brought. This is because the claim for delivery of the leased property from a specific point in time, whether before or after the filing of the action, includes the lesser claim for delivery at a later point in time, at which, pursuant to Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court will order the delivery of the leased property. For the success of a prematurely brought action for delivery of the leased property, it is not necessary for the claimant to allege and prove that there is a well-founded fear that the lessee will not voluntarily deliver the leased property upon the expiry of the lease. This is because, in this case, subparagraph (f) of paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, but rather subparagraph (a) of the same paragraph. The lessor’s legal interest, consisting in obtaining an enforceable title before the expiry of the lease so as to achieve delivery of the leased property upon its expiry, is self-evident. Moreover, upon the lapse of the statutory duration of a lease, at which point the lease expires automatically as soon as that period passes, without anything further being required, such as notice of termination or formal demand (see M. Margaritis / Ant. Margaritis, Interpretation of the Civil Code, Articles 608–611, no. 5, p. 524), there can be no question of termination, which, if exercised, has the meaning of the lessor’s opposition to a renewal of the lease. Therefore, even in cases where the lessor (with respect to old commercial leases) erroneously believes that after the lapse of the twelve-year duration the lease became of indefinite duration and proceeds to terminate it, whereas in fact it has been tacitly extended to sixteen years pursuant to Article 61(d) of Presidential Decree 34/1995 due to the lessor’s failure to exercise the claim for delivery of the leased property within the nine-month period following its expiry, such termination constitutes a declaration of intent that the lessor does not wish the continuation of the lease after the lapse of the sixteen years in the context of renewal. Delivery of the leased property by the lessee to the lessor will then be ordered upon the expiry of the lease. This is because the greater claim, namely the lessor’s claim for delivery of the leased property due to the dissolution of an indefinite-term lease by termination, includes the lesser claim, which is the delivery of the leased property as a consequence of the expiry of the lease due to the lapse of the contractual, statutory, or any period of mandatory extension of the lease.