It seems that the plenum of the Supreme Court will eventually determine the amount of damages granted to the relatives of victims of uninsured cars. This compensation is provided by the Insurance Guarantee Fund of Liability from Car Accidents, a state company governed by private laws, under the auspice of Central Bank of Greece (see details at: Traffic Accidents in Greece with Uninsured, Stolen or Hit & Run drivers.).
The previous decision which determined the compensation ceiling to € 6,000 was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's Division IV.
The Plenum of Supreme Court to rule on the claims of relatives of victims of fatal road accidents
The financial constraints imposed in 2012 on the viability of Insurance Guarantee Fund of Liability from Car Accidents (Auxiliary Capital) were ruled as unconstitutional by Supreme Court's Division IV.
The major issue of the provisions of Law 40092/2012 concerning the Insurance Guarantee Fund of Liability from Car Accidents which compensates the victims ' relatives due to fatal road accidents, is called to be judged by the plenum of the Supreme Court, following a referral from Division IV of the same court, which met on this topic under the chairmanship of Mrs. Vasiliki Thanou.
In particular, the provisions of this law posed an upper monetary threshold of 6,000 euros per person for compensation paid by the Insurance Guarantee Fund to relatives of victims of fatal accidents while 6% interest rate was also imposed with retroactive application of the law.
These measures were taken aiming to support the financial sustainability of Insurance Guarantee Fund that pays mostly in cases of road accidents made by unknown drivers or by private cars insured by insurance companies which closed down.
Division IV of the Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the specific settings are unconstitutional and referred the case to the Plenary.
The Division felt that it violated EU directive and the first additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). At the same time, it conceded that the restriction is contrary to the principle of proportionality and that the financial benefit of the Insurance Guarantee Fund does not constitute a cause of public benefit, the viability of which could be ensured with milder alternative means.
In contrast, the minority of Division IV ruled constitutional the provisions of this Act because the Insurance Guarantee Fund does function in the public interest and possible closure would lead to a complete denial of property rights of those concerned.
It is worth noting that the constitutionality of the law was argued by the Association of Insurance Companies. Various Greek Bar Associations intervened in favor of the unconstitutionality.