JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, No: 410/2011

The Supreme Court overturns its own previous judgement: the Supreme Court upheld our appeal, overturned an earlier (contrary) decision in the same case and awarded additional disability compensation.

“…disability or deformity as such does not necessarily mean causing property damage to the victim. Prominent and crucial is the fact of disability or deformity as damage to the body or health of the person, as an independent legal good, which also enjoys constitutional protection, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 6 of Article 21 of the Constitution, not only in relations citizens to the State, but also in their relations with each other, without this protection being necessarily associated with an inability to find economic benefits or advantages. Thus, the interpretation of Article 931 of the Civil Code is considered more correct, which makes it applicable, according to which the provision provides for the award to the disabled person or the distortion of a reasonable amount of money precisely because of the disability or deformity, without connection with specific property damage. which, after all, cannot be determined. The amount of the reasonable amount of money awarded under Article 931 of the Civil Code is found in principle on the basis of the type and consequences of the disability or deformity on the one hand and the age of the victim on the other. It is obvious that the claim according to article 931 of the Civil Code is different: a) from the claim of Civil Code 929 for lost income of the victim, which is necessarily connected with invocation and proof of specific property damage, due to the incapacity of the victim to work, and b ) from the financial satisfaction according to article 932 of the Civil Code due to moral damage. It is self-evident that all the above claims can be exercised either cumulatively or individually, since these are independent claims and the foundation of each of them does not necessarily presuppose the existence of one of the others (see Supreme Court in Plenary session No: 18/2008).”

Here is the whole decision in Greek.