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.

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.”