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.

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.