The problem of uninsured vehicles has now taken on the dimensions of a dangerous social phenomenon. Due to the ongoing economic crisis, the number of uninsured vehicles has multiplied. One of the most pressing issues associated with the circulation of uninsured vehicles is the matter of compensating the injured party in a traffic accident when the accident has been caused by the fault of a person driving an uninsured vehicle. According to the law, all vehicles circulating in Greece must be validly insured against damage caused to third parties during their circulation due to the fault of their driver. If the owner of a vehicle has not insured it, they are at risk of facing administrative and criminal penalties. Law 489/1976 provides that damage caused by uninsured vehicles is covered by the Auxiliary Fund for Motor Vehicle Accident Liability (the “Auxiliary Fund”). The Auxiliary Fund is a legal entity governed by private law, in which all insurance companies that insure civil liability arising from the circulation of motor vehicles participate on a mandatory basis. By virtue of the law, it bears responsibility to compensate victims of traffic accidents, among other cases, when the accident is caused by an uninsured vehicle. In cases where a traffic accident is caused by an uninsured vehicle, whether it results solely in property damage, bodily injury, or even death, the injured parties may be compensated for the damage they have suffered by the Auxiliary Fund, provided that they take a series of actions mainly relating to: • notifying the traffic police immediately after the collision at the scene of the accident, so that the incident is officially recorded, including the fact that the other involved vehicle is uninsured, • notifying the injured party’s insurance company, • notifying the Auxiliary Fund by submitting a written claim for compensation, accompanied by documents proving the claim, namely all documents evidencing the damage suffered, whether this concerns mere property damage to the vehicle or bodily injury and physical harm. Submission of this specific claim is deemed by law to be a mandatory prerequisite for the subsequent judicial pursuit of any compensation by the injured party. If such a claim is not submitted, any lawsuit filed by the injured party against the Auxiliary Fund will be rejected. In practice, the compensation procedure before the Auxiliary Fund is, in most cases, a complex process. The injured party should not be discouraged from judicially pursuing the compensation to which they are entitled if they are involved in a traffic accident with an uninsured vehicle. They should be aware that the compensation they are entitled to will be paid by the Auxiliary Fund, even if there is some delay. However, the course that must be followed in order for the process to be successful should not be underestimated. It must be handled with proper care, without omissions or errors, so as to secure compensation for any damage suffered as a result of a collision with an uninsured vehicle.

The Athens Bar Association has expressed its strong disagreement with the provisions of the new Bankruptcy Code, as they do not ensure effective protection for vulnerable debtors, particularly with regard to their primary residence. For this reason, it decided on the abstention of Athens lawyers from auction proceedings concerning the primary residence of vulnerable households/borrowers from 17 June 2021 to 31 July 2021.

In both residential (housing) leases and commercial leases, it is customary, for the purpose of securing the landlord, to agree on the payment of a sum of money as a security deposit prior to the commencement of the lease, upon the signing of the lease agreement. However, it must be emphasized from the outset that if the wording of the lease clauses relating to the security deposit is not correct and sufficiently specific, there is a risk that the amount of the deposit may be construed as a penalty clause forfeitable in the event of a breach. This would result in the deposit not being eligible for set-off at the end of the lease.

Exclusion from property damage insurance (and, consequently, the insurer’s lack of obligation to provide coverage) also applies where the driver did hold a driving licence, but at the time of the accident its validity period had expired. In a recent decision (Supreme Court Decision 379/2021), the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) held that damages caused by a driver who lacks a driving licence are excluded from insurance coverage.

According to Supreme Court decision no. 167/2020, it was held that, in the case of a combine harvester which, at the time of the accident, was operating as a tool, harvesting crops while its wheels were immobilized in a field and necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is required not only for its self-propelled movement on its wheels but also for the fulfillment of its functional purpose, the damage is not connected to the specific typical risks of a motor vehicle. This is because the predominant element is the operation of the machine as a tool and not as a motor vehicle. Law 489/1976, as codified by Presidential Decree 237/1986 and supplemented by subsequent legislation, provides as follows: Article1 For the purposes of this Law: (a) A motor vehicle is any vehicle moving on the ground and not on rails by mechanical force or electric power, regardless of the number of wheels. A motor vehicle is also considered to be any towed vehicle, whether coupled to the main motor vehicle or not, as well as a bicycle equipped with an auxiliary engine. Article2§1 The owner or possessor of a motor vehicle circulating in Greece on a road is obliged to insure civil liability towards third parties arising therefrom, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Circulation on land accessible to the public or to a certain number of persons entitled to frequent it is deemed equivalent to circulation on a road. Article6§3(a) The insurer is liable towards third parties who have suffered damage from the circulation of a motor vehicle. Article10§1 The person who has suffered damage has, by virtue of the insurance contract and up to its insured amount, a direct claim against the insurer. From these provisions, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Law ΓπΝ/1911, according to which a motor vehicle within the meaning of that Law is a vehicle or wheeled machine moved by mechanical power and not on rails, it follows that, in the case of a motor vehicle traffic accident, in order to establish liability either under Law ΓπΝ/1911 or under general tort law (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code), as well as to establish the liability of the insurance company under Articles 6 §3(a) and 10 §1 of Law 489/1976, a basic prerequisite is that the accident is caused “during the operation” of the motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is considered to be in operation even when it is stationary but its engine is running, as well as when it is moving without its engine operating. However, an accident is not considered to have occurred during the operation of a motor vehicle when it arises from a composite vehicle (consisting of a motor vehicle and a tool), where the vehicle is immobilized and the engine of the motor vehicle is necessarily operating solely in order to power the tool, provided that the accident is not connected with the specific typical risks generated by the operation of the motor vehicle. Accordingly, an incident caused by a combine harvester during its operation as a tool does not constitute an accident occurring during the operation of a motor vehicle. This applies when the machine, while immobilized on its wheels in a field, performs harvesting operations, necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is essential not only for its self-propelled movement on its wheels but also for the fulfillment of its functional purpose. In such a case, the damage is not connected with the specific typical risks of a motor vehicle, since the predominant element is the operation of the machine as a tool. Therefore, it is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Law ΓπΝ/1911 and Article 1(a) of Law 489/1976 (see Supreme Court decisions AP 646/2014, AP 504/2012, AP 1168/2007; cf. contrary decisions AP 209/2017, AP 238/2015, AP 519/1963 NoV 16/98, AP 1031/2018, all of which classify the composite machine as a motor vehicle, but in those cases the machine was in any event moving on its wheels). Consequently, in such cases, against the insurance company that has insured the civil liability of the machine for accidents occurring during its operation as a motor vehicle under the compulsory insurance regime of Law 489/1976, since the machine does not qualify as a motor vehicle, the injured third party has no direct claim against the insurer under that law. The injured party may only pursue a claim against the policyholder, whose culpable acts or omissions gave rise to the claim, pursuant to the general provisions of tort law (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code). The third party has the right to bring a claim against the insurer only indirectly, in the case of optional insurance, such as civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring during the operation of a machine as a tool.

In the event of injury or disfigurement (temporary or permanent) resulting from a road traffic accident, the injured party is entitled to compensation which, with proper documentation (technical or medical expert reports, etc.) and sound legal argumentation, may reach substantial amounts. According to Article 931 of the Greek Civil Code, “any disability or disfigurement caused to the injured party shall be taken into special consideration when awarding compensation, if it affects their future.”

In cases of traffic accidents caused by vehicles whose drivers hastily abandon the scene of the accident, leaving the victim without assistance, and in particular in cases where the at-fault vehicle remains unidentified and therefore unknown, with the result that the injured party does not know against whom to bring a claim, the Auxiliary Fund steps into the position of the liable party. The injured driver may bring a claim against the Auxiliary Fund, seeking compensation. The scope of the Auxiliary Fund’s liability, as compared to that of an insurance company, is more limited, particularly in the following three areas: a) Compensation for property damage, which is granted subject to specific conditions. b) The inability to recover the value of social security benefits already granted or to be granted in the future as a result of the traffic accident. c) The alignment of the interest rate applicable to compensation amounts payable by the Auxiliary Fund with the interest rate applicable to State debts, namely its limitation to a rate of 6%. Finally, in order for the injured party to lawfully bring an action against the Auxiliary Fund, they must first mandatorily submit a compensation claim to it, attaching the supporting documents that substantiate their claims. Only in the event of a negative or quasi-negative response (failure to respond beyond a three-month period) may the injured party proceed with the filing of a lawsuit (mandatory pre-litigation procedure). Otherwise, any action brought against the Auxiliary Fund is dismissed as inadmissible due to failure to comply with the required pre-litigation procedure.

In cases where a traffic accident is caused while the driver is under the influence of alcohol, the at-fault driver bears, on the one hand, civil and criminal liability towards the injured party and, on the other hand, administrative liability towards the State. At the same time, according to the applicable legislation, the insurance company that would otherwise be liable for compensation, namely the insurance company with which the damaging vehicle was insured at the time of the accident, is released from liability to compensate the injured party. Therefore, the sole party liable to cover all damages suffered by the injured driver as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol, including any amounts awarded for non-pecuniary (moral) damage, is the at-fault driver of the damaging vehicle. All claims arising from the traffic accident may be brought against that driver, and their criminal liability may also be pursued. More specifically, in cases where a traffic accident is caused under the influence of alcohol, the at-fault driver is liable as follows: 1) Civil liability towards the injured party In the event that an accident is caused by intoxication, the driver of the vehicle is liable for compensation under the general provisions governing tort liability (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code). In addition, together with the owner of the vehicle (where the owner of the damaging vehicle is a third party), the driver is also liable under Law ΓΠΝ/1911. The following statutory provisions constitute the legal basis of the injured driver’s claims, upon which the lawsuit and the amounts sought therein are based, such as property damage, increased maintenance costs, loss of income, medical expenses, moral damages, compensation due to permanent disability, etc. 2) Exemption of the liable insurance company Articles 2(1), 6(1), 10(1) and 11(1) of Law 489/1976 on compulsory motor vehicle civil liability insurance provide, inter alia, as follows: “The owner or possessor of a motor vehicle circulating in Greece on a road is obliged to have insured the civil liability arising therefrom towards third parties, in accordance with the provisions of this Law” (Article 2(1)). “The insurance must cover the civil liability of the owner, the possessor and any driver or person entrusted with the driving or otherwise responsible for the insured motor vehicle” (Article 6(1)). “The person who has suffered damage has, by virtue of the insurance contract and up to its insured amount, a direct claim against the insurer” (Article 10(1)). “The insurer may not raise against the injured party, when the latter exercises the claim provided for in Article 10(1), defenses arising from the insurance contract, without prejudice to the insurer’s right of recourse against the insured, the contracting party and the driver” (Article 11(1)). However, pursuant to Article 6(b) of Presidential Decree 237/1986: “1. Damage caused is excluded from insurance coverage where: … (b) it is caused by a driver who, at the time of the accident, was under the influence of alcohol or toxic substances, in violation of the Road Traffic Code (Law 2696/1999, Government Gazette 57 A), as in force, provided that such violation is causally linked to the occurrence of the accident …” Accordingly, damages caused while the driver of a motor vehicle is under the influence of alcohol or toxic substances, within the meaning and under the conditions of Article 42 of the Road Traffic Code, are excluded from insurance coverage. Therefore, in the case of a traffic accident caused by the intoxication of the at-fault driver, the liable insurance company is released from any liability, and the sole party responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the injured driver is the driver of the damaging vehicle. In practice, it is customary for a lawsuit to be filed both against the at-fault driver and against the insurance company, which (the insurance company) subsequently seeks recourse against the liable driver. 3) Criminal and administrative liability of the at-fault driver As regards the criminal liability of a driver under the influence of alcohol, this is governed by Article 302 of the Penal Code (negligent homicide, in the event of a fatal accident) or Article 314 of the Penal Code (negligent bodily harm, in the event of an accident resulting in bodily injuries to the victim), as well as by the new Article 290A of the Penal Code. Finally, relevant provisions are also contained in Article 42 of the Road Traffic Code, pursuant to which, depending on the blood alcohol concentration of the at-fault driver, the corresponding administrative sanctions are imposed, such as fines, suspension or revocation of the driving licence, etc.

By Supreme Court decision no. 1176/2019, it was held that in a collision between a vehicle and a train, in addition to the fault of the vehicle driver, there may also exist concurrent contributory negligence on the part of the employees of the train operating company and, by extension, of the train operating company itself. This contributory negligence arose from the improper maintenance of the warning and regulation systems at the level crossing, which are intended to alert approaching vehicle drivers to the arrival of a train. This omission contributed to a significant extent to the occurrence of the accident. More specifically, the above decision found that the occurrence of the accident was also attributable to fault on the part of the bodies of the respondent train operating company, which is responsible, pursuant to Article 3 of Law 3891/2010, for the construction of new railway infrastructure, the maintenance and operation of existing infrastructure, and the management of railway traffic regulation and safety systems. These bodies failed to ensure that, in the event of a malfunction of the automated level crossing system, a backup operating system for the audiovisual warning signals and the half-barriers was installed at the crossing, in order to warn drivers approaching the crossing of the arrival of a train. This omission contributed to the causation of the accident.