CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sD8212FBA { width:56.1%; border-collapse:collapse } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s66732282 { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF43C5150 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53532DF { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77626D63 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 29 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34577/18 Chasan DOURALI and Others against Greece lodged on 19 July 2018 communicated on 8 January 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are heirs of the intestate deceased owner of a car involved in an accident resulting in the injury of third parties. The car had been insured with an insurance company against civil liability. The Social Security Institute ( Ίδρυμα Κοινωνικών Ασφαλίσεων (ΙΚΑ), henceforth “IKA”,) compensated the injured party in respect of medical treatment and subsidies and sought the amounts paid by introducing an action against the injured parties, the owner of the car, the driver (the fifth applicant) and the insurance company. During the proceedings before the Xanthi court of first instance the authorisation ( άδεια λειτουργίας ) of the insurance company was revoked, and the company was subrogated by the Auxiliary Fund ( Επικουρικό Κεφάλαιο ). By judgment no. 68/2010, the Xanthi court of first instance found the car’s driver responsible for the accident and held that the injured party’s claims had been ex lege transferred to IKA (Article 18 Law no. 4476/1965). It further held that, insofar as the injured party was entitled to cover its damage by an insurance fund or other institution of social security, the Auxiliary Fund was exempted from payment and, accordingly, obliged each the driver and the owner of the car to pay severally to IKA the amounts sought, with legal interest. In reaching this conclusion, the court referred to Article 19 § 1 of Presidential Decree No. 237/1986 providing that the Auxiliary Fund is obliged to compensate persons who died or suffered bodily injuries or material damage from car accidents when the authorisation of the insurance company had been revoked. It further indicated that, according to Article 19 § 5 of the above ‑ mentioned Presidential Decree, the compensation to be paid by the Auxiliary Fund is limited to the supplement of the amount that an insurance fund or other institution of social security is obliged to pay for the same cause to the injured party. The owner of the car and the fifth applicant - in his capacity as the driver of the car - contested the above-mentioned judgment and lodged an appeal with the three-member Court of Appeal of Thrace. They submitted that the transfer of the claims of the insured person to IKA, taken together with the restricted liability of the Auxiliary Fund, resulted in an unfair outcome, considering that the car had been insured and hence it should be admitted that IKA was exempted from the insurance institutions referred to in the provision in question. In their observations, they relied upon Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. By judgment no. 334/2011, the appellate court dismissed their appeal. In the meantime, the owner of the car died and the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation as heirs of their intestate predecessor against the injured parties, the Auxiliary Fund and IKA, which was dismissed by judgment no. 157/2018 of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation found that the appeal on points of law was inadmissible in respect of the Auxiliary Fund. It further held that the first ground of appeal on points of law concerning the applicants’ right to property was primarily inadmissible, considering that, as transpired from the notice of appeal ( δικόγραφο έφεσης ), the ground of appeal in question had not been invoked before the appellate court. Further, it found that in any event this ground of appeal was unsubstantiated, holding that the Auxiliary Fund was exempted from payment, thereby ruling out the application of the provision of Article   930 § 3 of the Greek Civil Code providing for the cumulative recovery of compensation. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they were obliged to pay excessive compensation despite having a legitimate expectation of full insurance coverage as the vehicle was insured, as was obligatory, against civil liability at the time of the accident. They further argue that the concurrent implementation of both legislative provisions, notably the one regarding the transfer of claims to IKA and the restricted liability of the Auxiliary Fund, was to the detriment of the applicants. According to their allegations, had the authorisation of the insurance company not been revoked, the Auxiliary Fund would not have been exempted.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicants’ complaints, has there been an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? 2.     In the affirmative, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?       APPENDIX Application no. 34577/18 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Chasan DOURALI 1968 Greek XANTHI 2. Nichat DOURALI 1973 Greek XANTHI 3. Sami DOURALI 1979 Greek XANTHI 4. Chairie DOURALI 1945 Greek XANTHI 5. Seimi DOURALI 1970 Greek XANTHI