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.
- 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.
