In According to Article 4 of Law 4092/2012, the amount of €6,000 was established as the maximum limit for compensation for emotional distress of the victim’s relatives, payable by the Auxiliary Fund, in the event of a fatal traffic accident.

The transfer of real estate through a donation is a common type of contract; however, it raises significant formal and substantive issues. For drafting such a contract, a series of documents—tax, insurance, and others—are required from both the donor and the donee, which must be attached to the relevant contract.

A person injured in a traffic accident is entitled to claim significant amounts for bodily and health injuries that cause or may cause permanent disability or deformation, etc. A necessary condition for this is that the related claim is sufficiently detailed and substantiated in the lawsuit. According to the law, the injured party has the right to claim through their lawsuit—beyond other compensation usually provided in such cases—additional compensation for permanent disability or deformation suffered and any that may continue in the future, provided it is mentioned and proven that it affects their social and economic development. Under Article 931 of the Civil Code (AC), “the disability or deformation caused to the injured party is taken into particular consideration when awarding compensation, if it affects their future.” “Disability” is considered a lack of physical, mental, or psychological integrity of the person, while “deformation” is any significant alteration of the external appearance of the person, determined not necessarily by medical opinions but according to societal perceptions. Furthermore, “future” refers to the professional, economic, and social development of the person. From this provision, combined with Articles 298, 299, 914, 929, and 932 AC, it follows that disability or deformation caused to the injured party, regardless of gender, in addition to its impact on entitlements under Articles 929 and 932, may also constitute an independent claim for compensation if it affects their future—that is, their professional, economic, and social development. It is not required to prove a certainty of negative impact on the person’s future; even a mere possibility according to the usual course of events is sufficient. In professional and economic terms, disability or deformation, according to common experience, constitutes a disadvantage in terms of competition and career advancement. The adverse consequences are more pronounced during economic hardship and tight labor markets. Those burdened with disability or deformation are at a disadvantage and risk being excluded from employment compared to healthy colleagues. The wording of Article 931 provides a basis for such a claim, if the disability or deformation affects the injured party’s economic future, which cannot be fully covered by the provisions of Articles 929 and 932. This monetary provision does not constitute “compensation” in the conventional sense, which is conceptually tied to claiming and proving financial loss—i.e., the difference between the person’s financial situation after the harmful event and what it would have been without it. Moreover, the consequence of disability or deformation—incapacity for work—if it causes financial loss to the injured party, forms the basis for a claim under Article 929 AC (lost income claim). However, disability or deformation as such does not necessarily imply financial loss. This is the case, for example, for a minor who has not yet entered the labor market and cannot, due to the accident and resulting disability or deformation, claim financial loss. It is impossible to predict that disability or deformation will cause a specific financial loss to the injured party. It is, however, certain that disability or deformation, depending on its degree and other relevant circumstances (age, gender, inclinations, and desires of the injured party), will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on their economic development, though it cannot be precisely determined. This adverse effect is considered given, and therefore an exhaustive determination of the specific way this effect manifests and its consequences for the social and economic future of the injured party is not required. Accordingly, the most accurate interpretation of Article 931 AC is that it provides for awarding the injured party a reasonable monetary amount precisely because of the disability or deformation, without connection to specific financial loss. The amount awarded is determined based on certain determining factors, such as the type and consequences of the disability or deformation, the age, gender, and inclinations of the injured party, and taking into account the degree of contributory fault of the injured party in causing the disability or deformation. Therefore, for calculating the monetary award under Article 931 AC, the rules applicable to Article 929 AC (lost income compensation) do not apply. Under Article 929, compensation is first calculated based on the positive and consequential loss of the injured party, then reduced by the degree of their contributory fault. Monetary compensation under Article 931 AC, however, is not considered “compensation” but is awarded solely due to the disability or deformation, as determined reasonably by the court, based on the aforementioned factors (Supreme Court Decisions: 416/2012, 1226/2011, 123/2010, 150/2014). All the above claims (lost income, moral damage, compensation for permanent disability or deformation) can be pursued either cumulatively or separately, as they constitute independent claims, and the establishment of each one is independent and does not necessarily require the existence of the others.

In cases of traffic accidents involving uninsured vehicles—i.e., vehicles for which no insurance coverage exists to cover damages caused by a traffic accident, either because the owner never insured the vehicle, failed to renew its insurance, or because the insurance company in which the vehicle was insured lost its operating license or went bankrupt—the owner of the damaged vehicle is required to direct their claims to the organization known as the “Hellenic Motor Insurance Liability Guarantee Fund” (Epikouriko Kefaleo Asfalisis Efthynis apo Atychimata Aftokiniton), in order to pursue compensation for the traffic accident, following a specific legal pre-procedure. If this pre-procedure does not produce results, the injured party may then pursue their claims in court by filing a lawsuit against the Guarantee Fund. Due to the particularly difficult situation, especially financially, in which a victim of a traffic accident involving an uninsured vehicle finds themselves, a compensation mechanism has been established to address the need to compensate the injured party. This is done through an organization created specifically to compensate victims of traffic accidents whose claims against insurance companies are impossible to fulfill for the reasons mentioned above, namely in the case of an accident involving an uninsured vehicle. The uninsured vehicle responsible for a traffic accident, as a case of urgent need to restore damages caused, is covered by this organization, the Hellenic Motor Insurance Liability Guarantee Fund, which provides compensation for cases of death, bodily injury, and, under certain conditions, property damage. It is worth noting that under Article 19, §8 of Law 489/1976 (as amended by Article 4(d) of Law 4092/2012), in cases of traffic accidents where the Guarantee Fund is legally liable, the submission of a written claim for compensation to the Fund by the injured party is mandatory. This submission is a prerequisite for the admissibility of any subsequent lawsuit against the Fund. Specifically, according to paragraph 8 of Article 19 of Law 489/1976 (as added by paragraph d of Article 4 of Law 4092/2012), a lawsuit against the Guarantee Fund is admissible only if the claimant has first submitted a written claim for compensation, attaching all documents supporting the claim. The Guarantee Fund is obliged to respond in writing within three months from the submission. Only after receiving the Fund’s response—or upon the expiration of the three-month period without a reply—can the injured party file a lawsuit against the Guarantee Fund. Therefore, in the event of a traffic accident involving an uninsured vehicle, the injured party is required to direct their claim to the Guarantee Fund in order to receive compensation, first following the legally prescribed pre-procedure outlined above.

In the event that a vehicle is involved in a traffic accident and is either completely destroyed or its repair is deemed economically unfeasible, the owner is entitled to claim from the at-fault driver and their insurance company, among other things, compensation equal to the value of the vehicle prior to the accident, minus the value of any salvageable parts, due to the total loss of the vehicle. Total loss of a vehicle generally takes two main forms. The first form is physical or actual total loss, while the second form, a combination of two parameters, is economic and technical total loss. There is also a third case, which concerns the near-total destruction of a nearly new vehicle. In the first form, the physical or actual total loss, the deformation of the vehicle’s body is such that repair is technically impossible. In the second form, the economic and technical total loss, the vehicle may be technically repairable, but the cost of parts and labor is at least equal to or significantly exceeds the vehicle’s market value before the accident (taking into account depreciation). In such cases, the repair is deemed economically unfeasible. Moreover, if a vehicle has been damaged in critical areas affecting its roadworthiness, and even if repair is economically feasible, it cannot be guaranteed that it can be restored to a condition safe for circulation, courts have frequently recognized such vehicles as total losses. In cases of total loss as described above, the injured party is entitled to claim compensation equal to the value of the destroyed vehicle immediately prior to the collision. However, the injured party must either return the damaged vehicle to the liable party or reduce the claimed compensation by the value of the remaining salvageable parts. To calculate the market value of the vehicle before the accident, the purchase price is taken into account, reduced by the percentage of normal wear and tear caused by usual use up to the date of the accident. It should be emphasized that if the destroyed vehicle was used for professional purposes, such as a taxi or commercial truck, the injured party is entitled not only to compensation for the total loss but also cumulatively to compensation for lost profits. This means they may claim from the liable party and their insurance company the profits that can be reasonably proven to have been expected from the vehicle’s use prior to the accident, as estimated by the court according to usual circumstances. Irrefutable evidence includes the claimant’s tax returns. For a court to accept a claim for lost profits, it is essential that the relevant claim has been notified to the competent tax authority; otherwise, the claim will be dismissed as inadmissible. Additionally, positive damages that the injured party may claim in the case of total loss include expenses for renting another vehicle. It should be noted that all the above rights can only be exercised through the submission of a properly drafted lawsuit, in which all details of the accident, the costs for parts, repair, and painting, as well as the market value of the destroyed vehicle, must be fully documented in order to prove beyond any doubt the total loss. For this reason, the injured party should have either a cost estimate from a repair shop or an expert appraisal detailing the required repairs and their costs.

In cases of either vehicle property damage or total vehicle loss, as well as in cases of injuries (including fatal injuries) to drivers or pedestrians caused by poor road conditions (e.g., potholes, broken manholes, unprotected ditches, etc.), the municipality is obligated to compensate the injured party or their heirs for the damages suffered. Such compensation can be claimed through the filing of a lawsuit. There are numerous instances where poor road conditions, such as an unprotected pothole, a broken manhole, or even the lack of lighting in a particular area, can lead to accidents, including fatal ones, involving passing pedestrians or drivers. In such cases, who should the injured party or their heirs hold accountable? Greek courts have already addressed this issue. They have consistently held that municipalities are liable to compensate injured parties or their heirs, because under the law, municipalities are responsible for the proper construction, operation, maintenance, and supervision of roads to ensure safe usage by the public. Specifically, according to the provisions of Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code (Εισ.Ν.Α.Κ.), “For unlawful acts or omissions of public authorities in the exercise of public power assigned to them, the state is liable for compensation…,” and Article 106 states that “The provisions of the two preceding articles also apply to the liability of municipalities, communities, or other public law entities, for acts or omissions of their authorities.” Furthermore, Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Law 3155/1955 (A’ 63) requires the State and municipalities or communities to construct, renovate, and maintain the roads referred to in Articles 2, paragraphs 1 and 4 of that law. Additionally, Article 24 of Presidential Decree 410/1995 (Municipal and Community Code) stipulates: “1… The responsibilities of municipalities and communities include, in particular: a) the construction, maintenance, and operation of: i) water supply, irrigation, and sewerage systems… municipal and community roadworks… id) regulation of traffic, designation of sidewalks, one-way streets, traffic directions, … naming streets and squares, and installation of signs.” Under these provisions, liability for compensation arises not only from the issuance of an unlawful administrative act or failure to issue such an act, but also from unlawful physical actions by public authorities or municipalities, communities, or public law entities, or from omissions of required lawful actions, provided these arise from the organization and operation of public services and are unrelated to private management or to personal fault of the official acting outside the scope of their duties. This liability of the State, municipalities, communities, or public law entities is objective, meaning it does not depend on the fault of the responsible official. It arises even when specific duties and obligations required for the service are omitted, as imposed by law, common experience, and the principles of good faith. To establish this liability, there must be a causal link between the unlawful act or omission and the resulting damage. Municipalities and communities, according to the principles of good administration, are required to supervise and monitor the suitability of roads, sidewalks, and drainage systems, and take appropriate measures for their maintenance and repair to ensure smooth traffic flow and protect the physical integrity of citizens using public spaces from potential defects (principle of prevention). Therefore, any failure by a local authority to perform its required duties, as described above, constitutes administrative illegality and creates a legal basis for compensation under Articles 105–106 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code. The State and public law entities are obligated to restore all positive or consequential damages (hospitalization, medical care, material damages, funeral expenses, etc.), while courts may also award monetary compensation for moral damage or emotional distress under Article 932 of the Civil Code. A necessary condition for awarding compensation, including monetary compensation for moral damage under Article 932, is the existence of a causal link between the unlawful act, omission, or physical act or omission of the public authority and the resulting damage. It should be noted that all these rights can only be exercised through the filing of a properly drafted lawsuit, in which all circumstances of the accident, as well as the damage suffered by the injured pedestrian or driver, must be analyzed in full detail.

A passenger in a vehicle involved in a traffic accident can claim compensation from the at-fault driver, whether that driver was operating the vehicle in which the passenger was traveling or the other vehicle involved, as well as from the corresponding insurance companies. In the event of a traffic accident, the first issue to be determined is the cause of the accident, in order to assign responsibility to the at-fault driver.