1. Με το νέο άρθ. 27Α που προστέθηκε στον ν. 4784/2021 με τον ν. 5322/2026 εισάγεται

«Υποχρέωση ασφάλισης Ελαφρών Προσωπικών Ηλεκτρικών Οχημάτων (Ε.Π.Η.Ο)». Ο νόμος εννοεί, όπως συνάγεται από το κείμενο της διάταξης, «υποχρέωση ασφάλισης κατά του κινδύνου αστικής ευθύνης», καθόσον ασφάλιση χωρίς προσδιορισμό του κινδύνου που καλύπτει δεν είναι νοητή. Η υποχρέωση βαρύνει τον κύριο και τον κάτοχο των Ε.Π.Η.Ο. με ηλεκτροκινητήρα, ως τα οχήματα αυτά ορίζονται στον Κώδικα Οδικής Κυκλοφορίας (ΚΟΚ), τα οποία είναι α] τα πατίνια / e-scooters, β] τα τροχοπέδιλα (rollers), γ] οι τροχοσανίδες (skateboards) και δ] τα αυτοεξισορροπούμενα προσωπικά οχήματα.

2. Στην παρ. 1, η διάταξη προβλέπει ότι ο κύριος και ο κάτοχος των ως άνω Ε.Π.Η.Ο.

«υποχρεούται σε ασφάλιση γενικής αστικής ευθύνης έναντι τρίτου για την κυκλοφορία των οχημάτων αυτών». Ο ν. 4364/2016 για την ανάληψη και άσκηση δραστηριοτήτων (αντ)ασφάλισης, στο άρθ. 4 αυτού, προβλέπει μεν πως, όποια ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης δεν είναι ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης από χερσαία οχήματα, από αεροσκάφη και από θαλάσσια κ.λπ. πλοία, εντάσσεται στον κλάδο των ασφαλίσεων γενικής αστικής ευθύνης, πλην όμως πρόκειται για ονομασίες που χρησιμοποιεί ο νόμος για να ταξινομήσει τους κινδύνους των επιμέρους κλάδων ασφαλίσεων για τους οποίους μπορεί να δοθεί από την εποπτική Αρχή άδεια εργασιών σε μία ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση. Αντίθετα, στο επίπεδο των συμβατικών σχέσεων ασφαλισμένου – ασφαλιστικής επιχείρησης, η ονομασία «ασφάλιση γενικής αστικής ευθύνης» δεν μπορεί να αφορά κάλυψη κάθε αστικής ευθύνης, αλλά θα αφορά πάντα ασφάλιση κάποιου επιμέρους κινδύνου ή κατηγορίας κινδύνων αστικής ευθύνης. Αλλά και ως ταξινομημένος κλάδος, η ασφάλιση γενικής αστικής ευθύνης περιλαμβάνει κάθε είδους ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης εκτός της αστικής ευθύνης χερσαίων αυτοκίνητων οχημάτων, αεροσκαφών και θαλάσσιων κ.λπ. σκαφών, που αποτελούν διακεκριμένους κλάδους. Εν προκειμένω, ο κίνδυνος που θα πρέπει να καλύπτεται από την νέα υποχρεωτική ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης που εισάγει η διάταξη είναι ο κίνδυνος αστικής ευθύνης έναντι του τρίτου ζημιωθέντα από την κυκλοφορία του Ε.Π.Η.Ο. Έτσι, η αναφορά της διάταξης σε «ασφάλιση γενικής αστικής ευθύνης…» αναιρείται από την συνέχεια της φράσης «…έναντι τρίτου για την κυκλοφορία των οχημάτων αυτών». Αλλά και από την άποψη της ταξινόμησης των ασφαλιστικών κινδύνων που γίνεται για τις ανάγκες της εποπτείας, η ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης του κυρίου και κατόχου Ε.Π.Η.Ο. κατατάσσεται στον ασφαλιστικό κλάδο «αστική ευθύνη από χερσαία αυτοκίνητα οχήματα» και όχι στον κλάδο «γενική αστική ευθύνη», γιατί το Ε.Π.Η.Ο. είναι όχημα, ο δε ο τίτλος του κλάδου 10 («αστική ευθύνη από χερσαία αυτοκίνητα οχήματα») δεν αναφέρεται αποκλειστικά στα οχήματα των οποίων ο κύριος/κάτοχος υποχρεούται να έχει ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης από ατυχήματα τρίτων σύμφωνα με το π.δ. 237/1986, αλλά αδιακρίτως στα όποια αυτοκίνητα οχήματα. Διαφορετικά η ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης έναντι τρίτων για ατυχήματα από αυτοκίνητα στα οποία δεν εφαρμόζεται το π.δ. 237/1986, θα έπρεπε να κατατάσσεται στον γενικό κλάδο «ασφάλισης γενικής αστικής ευθύνης». Υπάρχουν περισσότεροι από 40 υποχρεωτικά καλυπτόμενοι κίνδυνοι αστικής ευθύνης, με τις σχετικές υποχρεωτικές ασφαλίσεις να ονομάζονται σύμφωνα με τον κίνδυνο που καλύπτουν, όπως λ.χ. η υποχρεωτική ασφάλιση αστικής ευθύνης των ασφαλιστικών διαμεσολαβητών, η οποία δεν ονομάζεται ασφάλιση γενικής αστικής ευθύνης, χωρίς να έχει καμία σημασία ότι, για να μπορεί να ασκηθεί η ασφάλιση αυτή, θα πρέπει η ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση να έχει άδεια για την άσκηση του κλάδου γενικής αστικής ευθύνης. Ως ονομασία της ασφαλιστικής σύμβασης δίδεται ο κίνδυνος ή οι κίνδυνοι που καλύπτονται από την συγκεκριμένη ασφαλιστική σύμβαση και όχι ένας κλάδος από τους 18 κλάδους στους οποίους ταξινομούνται οι ασφαλιστικές εργασίες με σκοπό να δοθεί η άδεια εργασιών από την εποπτική Αρχή στην αιτούσα ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση, η οποία μπορεί να ζητήσει άδεια εργασιών για έναν ή περισσότερους ή και τους 18 κλάδους.

Ακολούθως, η νέα διάταξη προβλέπει ότι η υποχρεωτική ασφάλιση καλύπτει υποχρεωτικά «σωματικές βλάβες, τον θάνατο και τις υλικές ζημίες που προκαλούνται από την κυκλοφορία του ως άνω Ε.Π.Η.Ο. (…) και καταλαμβάνει και την αστική ευθύνη του οδηγού για ποσό €50.000 ανά περιστατικό και συνολικά κατ’ έτος για όλα τα περιστατικά». Όμως εφόσον η διάταξη τιτλοφορείται υποχρέωση ασφάλισης Ε.Π.Η.Ο., αναγκαία οι σωματικές βλάβες, ο θάνατος και οι υλικές ζημίες που προκαλούνται από την κυκλοφορία του γεννούν αστική ευθύνη του οδηγού και η προσθήκη της αναφοράς σε «υποχρέωση ασφάλισης της αστικής ευθύνης του οδηγού» έχει νόημα μόνο ως προς το σκέλος του καθορισμού του κατώτατου ορίου αστικής ευθύνης για το οποίο πρέπει να είναι ασφαλισμένος ο οδηγός του οχήματος αυτού.

3. Η παρ. 1 τελειώνει με την πρόβλεψη ότι «σε περίπτωση κάλυψης προσωπικού ατυχήματος νόμιμου οδηγού του Ε.Π.Η.Ο., το ελάχιστο ποσό κάλυψης για μόνιμη ολική ανικανότητα, μόνιμη μερική ανικανότητα και απώλεια ζωής από ατύχημα ανά περιστατικό και συνολικά κατ’ έτος για όλα τα περιστατικά ορίζεται στα €10.000». Η πρόβλεψη αφορά μόνο την περίπτωση που ο κύριος ή κάτοχος του οχήματος θελήσει να διενεργήσει ασφάλιση υπέρ του οδηγού του οχήματος κατά προσωπικού του ατυχήματος. Σε αυτήν την περίπτωση ο οδηγός πρέπει να είναι «νόμιμος», δηλαδή να το οδηγούσε σύμφωνα με την εκπεφρασμένη ή προκύπτουσα βούληση του κυρίου ή κατόχου αυτού και το κατώτατο όριο κάλυψης πρέπει να είναι €10.000. Αφού όμως αυτή η κάλυψη δεν αφορά τον υποχρεωτικά ασφαλισμένο κίνδυνο αστικής ευθύνης του οδηγού του οχήματος, αλλά τον κίνδυνο προσωπικού ατυχήματος του οδηγού και παρέχεται προαιρετικά, μόνο «σε περίπτωση» που συναφθεί, δεν υπάρχει λόγος ορισμού ελάχιστου ποσού, αφού μπορεί ο κύριος / κάτοχος του Ε.Π.Η.Ο. να μην προβεί καν στην ασφάλιση αυτή. Εξάλλου, η ελευθερία των συμβάσεων επιτρέπει να συμφωνηθεί ασφάλιση προσωπικού ατυχήματος και για πολύ υψηλότερο κατώτατο ποσό και να καλύπτει ακόμα και τον μη νόμιμο οδηγό.

4. Στην παρ. 2 της διάταξης του νέου άρθ. 27Α προβλέπεται ότι η ασφάλιση δεν παρέχεται αν δεν τηρούνται οι προϋποθέσεις του άρθ. 44 παρ. 10 του ΚΟΚ, που αφορά το ελάχιστο όριο ηλικίας του οδηγού. Με τροποποίηση της ως άνω διάταξης του ΚΟΚ που εισάγει το άρθ. 76 παρ. 2 του νέου νόμου, στον οποίο περιέχεται και η ρύθμιση περί υποχρεωτικής ασφάλισης του κυρίου / κατόχου Ε.Π.Η.Ο., προβλέπεται ως γενικό ηλικιακό όριο για την νόμιμη οδήγηση όλων των Ε.Π.Η.Ο. (πλην των αναπηρικών αμαξιδίων) τα 17 έτη (ενώ μέχρι σήμερα το όριο ήταν τα 12 έτη για τα πατίνια και τα 15 έτη για τα τροχοπέδιλα και τις τροχοσανίδες). Δεδομένης υποχρέωσης κάλυψης του οδηγού Ε.Π.Η.Ο., οι ως άνω περιορισμοί αφορούν την υποχρέωση της ασφαλιστικής εταιρίας να μην δέχεται να ασφαλίσει ευθύνη για ατυχήματα Ε.Π.Η.Ο., αν δεν συντρέχουν στο πρόσωπο του οδηγού οι ως άνω ηλικιακές προϋποθέσεις, σε περίπτωση παράβασης των οποίων, εννοείται, δεν επιτρέπεται να οδηγούνται τα εν λόγω οχήματα.

4. Σημειώνεται ότι η νέα αυτή υποχρεωτική ασφάλιση αφήνει, μεταξύ άλλων, αρρύθμιστο:

α] το ζήτημα της κάλυψης της αστικής ευθύνης του κατόχου έναντι τρίτων ζημιωθέντων από ατύχημα που προξένησε «μη νόμιμος οδηγός». Να σημειωθεί ότι, μεταξύ των άλλων ελλείψεων της διάταξης που εισάγει την υποχρεωτική ασφάλιση αυτή, ο κύριος – μη κάτοχος/οδηγός που προξένησε το ατύχημα, κατ’ αρχήν δεν θα ευθύνεται έναντι του τρίτου ζημιωθέντα, γιατί δεν υφίσταται διάταξη που να θεμελιώνει ευθύνη του κυρίου – μη οδηγού Ε.Π.Η.Ο. από διακινδύνευση, ούτε προφανώς αποτελεί γενεσιουργό λόγο της ευθύνης του κυρίου μόνη η κατοχή του Ε.Π.Η.Ο.. Περαιτέρω, η διάταξη:

β] δεν προβλέπει δικαίωμα ευθείας αγωγής του ζημιωθέντα τρίτου κατά του ασφαλιστή αστικής ευθύνης του κυρίου / κατόχου Ε.Π.Η.Ο.,

γ] δεν προβλέπει αν η ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση μπορεί να αρνηθεί την κάλυψη, αν ο ασφαλισμένος ήθελε παραβεί συμβατικές του υποχρεώσεις και το σπουδαιότερο,

δ] δεν προβλέπει αν η ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση μπορεί να θέσει απαλλακτικές ρήτρες – και ποιες είναι αυτές – για την περίπτωση παραβάσεων ασφαλιστικών όρων ούτε προβλέπει αν και σε ποια έκταση εφαρμόζεται ο ΑσφΝ ενώ, τέλος,

ε] δεν προβλέπει ειδικό μηχανισμό εντοπισμού των ανασφάλιστων Ε.Π.Η.Ο.

The post Υποχρεωτική ασφάλιση ηλεκτρικών πατινιών: Μία αναγκαία, πλην ατελής ρύθμιση appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Across Europe, a history of cancer can affect access to financial services, loans, mortgages and insurance. This discrimination arises because past diagnoses are potentially treated as ongoing financial risk, thus it becomes more difficult for cancer survivors to take out insurance, they are subject to higher premiums and more limited coverage, while they are also often excluded from premium services. Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for the right to erasure, pursuant to which the data subject may request that the controller erase his or her personal data without undue delay, where one of the grounds set out therein applies. These grounds include, inter alia, circumstances where the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected, and where the erasure of the personal data is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject under Union law. However, in the present case, the issue is not one of data erasure; rather, the matter is that such information ceases to have legal reference, may no longer be relied upon after a specified remission period. The request for information about the policyholder’s oncological medical history is not permitted, nor is it possible to acquire such information when it comes from other sources. Likewise, if this information is in any case available to the operator or financial intermediary, it cannot be used to determine the terms of the contract.

The Data Protection Dimension

In cases involving cancer, the “right to be forgotten” does not necessarily entail the physical deletion of medical records from a hospital’s or healthcare provider’s systems, since such records may legitimately need to be retained for medical, healthcare and other legally recognised purposes. Rather, in this context, the concept primarily concerns restrictions on the use and processing of such health data by insurers and financial institutions, so as to prevent an individual’s previous cancer diagnosis from being used as a basis for unjustified discrimination or adverse decision-making. In any event, from a data protection perspective, health data and medical history are afforded enhanced protection under the GDPR and, more precisely, constitute “special categories of personal data” within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. In cases such as those involving cancer survivors, because medical data cannot be completely deleted from the healthcare system (for reasons of public health and medical history), the right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) may operate alongside the right to restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. In practical terms, this means that the data are “locked”, while their further processing or use for the purpose of making decisions adversely affecting the individual may be restricted.

The Emerging EU Regulatory Framework

Τhe EU Consumer Credit Directive, published in October 2023, was the first European law to include provisions that personal information, including health data such as past cancer, should not be used to determine creditworthiness. Τhe information used to assess creditworthiness should be necessary and proportionate to the nature, duration, value, and risks of the credit to the consumer, in accordance with the data minimization principle set forth in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and should be relevant, complete, and accurate. Under the Directive, Member States can set the period after treatment during which health data can still be used, but this cannot exceed 15 years. Later, in September 2024, the European Commission adopted a non binding Code of Conduct on fair access of cancer survivors to financial services, a self regulatory commitment by insurance undertakings to guarantee the right to be forgotten in the context of life insurance policies linked to loans. While this sets a universal framework, some national provisions can still be stricter than medically necessary. Member States will begin applying the Directive from 20 November 2026.

Therefore, the Directive introduces the right to be forgotten (oncological oblivion), which grants cancer survivors the right to not disclose their prior history when applying for life insurance. The Directive has been adopted so far by several member states, among which there is variation in the time period used for the right to be implemented (5-10 years). The said period is shorter in some Member States in case the survivor was underage when diagnosed, provided there is no relapse, as well as in case of diagnosis of non-invasive cancer. Other countries have adopted non-legislative frameworks which work as conventions between the government and the insurer, and regulatory Codes of Conduct.

The Greek Framework: From Self-Regulation to Statutory Protection

Specifically, as far as Greece is concerned, Law No. 5317/2026, which transposes said Directive, sets a five-year period starting from the completion of treatment, after which the use of personal data related to a consumer’s cancer diagnosis is prohibited, in the context of an insurance contract linked to a credit agreement. The authority responsible for supervising and enforcing this provision is the Hellenic Data Protection Authority. Previously, in 2024, a Code of Conduct had been issued, which served as a voluntary commitment by Greek insurance companies. The Code applied to life insurance policies linked to mortgage, business, or consumer loans, with a maximum total insured amount of 300,000 euros. Therefore, the Code of Conduct continues to apply in cases not covered by the scope of the Directive.

The enactment of Law 5317/2026 marks the transition from self-regulation and the Code of Conduct to statutory protection. The use of personal data relating to a consumer’s diagnosis of an oncological disease for the purposes of an insurance contract linked to a credit agreement is prohibited, provided that five (5) years have elapsed since the completion of treatment without any recurrence of the disease. The purpose of this legislative framework is: (i) equal access, (ii) fair insurance premiums, in the sense that a history of cancer may not be used as justification for excessive increases in life insurance premiums, and (iii) the protection of personal data, in the sense that insured persons are no longer required to disclose their medical history once the above-mentioned period has elapsed.

However, in order for the purpose of a legislative provision to be effectively achieved, it is also necessary to provide for legal consequences in the event of its infringement. The unlawful processing and use of such data by a bank or insurance company may trigger, on the one hand, administrative fines and, on the other hand, civil liability for damages.

Since Law 5317/2026 constitutes consumer protection legislation, the General Secretariat for Commerce & Consumer Protection may impose significant administrative fines. Furthermore, as medical data constitute “special category data”, the Hellenic Data Protection Authority may also independently impose an administrative fine. The Bank of Greece, in its capacity as the supervisory authority for insurance companies, also appears to have the power to impose sanctions in cases of non-compliance with the applicable statutory obligations and the relevant Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the consumer has the right to bring proceedings before the civil courts, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the unlawful processing of their sensitive personal data and the violation of the “Right to be Forgotten”. Finally, potential criminal sanctions cannot be excluded, as Greek data protection legislation (Law 4624/2019), which is also applicable, expressly provides for criminal sanctions. Therefore, Law 5317/2026 establishes the prohibition on such use under Article 16, while the criminal prosecution of company officers or other responsible persons who violate this prohibition is based on the general criminal provisions of Article 38 of Law 4624/2019 (which constitutes the Greek implementing legislation supplementing the GDPR).

You can read the full analysis here: The Right to be forgotten and its impact on the insurance market – Lexology

The post The Right to be forgotten and its impact on the insurance market appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

The post Is Your Business Ready for Greece’s Cybersecurity Law? Law 5160/2024 in Practice, and Where Greece Stands in the EU appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

The development of the digital economy and new models of product and service distribution has further blurred the line between permissible forms of direct selling and prohibited pyramid schemes. A particular challenge lies in distinguishing legitimate multi-level marketing (MLM) models from systems whose economic sustainability is primarily based on the continuous recruitment of new participants. Although both models rely on a multi-level organisation of participants, their legal and economic foundations are fundamentally different. This phenomenon has become even more complex due to the fact that, alongside traditional physical trade in goods, these models increasingly appear in the digital sphere through the sale of intangible products.

A significant milestone in the legal distinction between MLM models and prohibited pyramid schemes was the decision of the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in In re Amway Corp., decided in 1979. In that proceeding, criteria relevant for distinguishing legitimate multi-level selling models from unlawful pyramid structures were systematically examined.

Although the Amway decision has no direct application in the Republic of Serbia, the criteria considered in that proceeding continue to represent one of the relevant reference points for distinguishing legitimate MLM models from pyramid schemes in numerous legal systems.

Multi-Level Marketing as a Business Model, Not a Legal Form

From the perspective of corporate law, it is important to clarify the nature of the concept of multi-level marketing. MLM, in itself, does not constitute a separate legal form or a distinct category of business entity; rather, it represents a business model that may be implemented by business entities operating under different legal forms.

The manner in which distributors are engaged and their tax status depend on the specific business model and the legal nature of their relationship with the company.

Accordingly, any entity seeking to implement this business model on the Serbian market must be registered in accordance with the Companies Act of the Republic of Serbia and other regulations governing the performance of business activities, have an appropriate registered activity, comply with its tax obligations and operate within the applicable regulatory framework.

Regulatory Framework

Where the sale of goods within a particular MLM model is carried out through direct contact with consumers outside business premises, such relationships may fall within the scope of the provisions governing direct selling under Article 15 of the Trade Law of the Republic of Serbia. This form of trade involves selling outside business premises, with the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, together with the consumer’s prior consent to receive an offer. It may be conducted at promotional sales events or at the consumer’s residence or workplace.

In practice, relationships between a company and its distributors may be regulated through various types of contractual arrangements, depending on the actual substance of their relationship, including a commercial agency agreement where the statutory requirements for such an arrangement are fulfilled. However, the contractual structure itself is not decisive for assessing the legality of an MLM model; rather, the relevant consideration is its actual economic function and the manner in which revenue is generated.

Where a system operates in such a way that income is generated exclusively or predominantly from the actual sale of products to end consumers, this represents a lawful form of direct selling.

When Does Multi-Level Marketing Become a Prohibited Pyramid Scheme?

The absence of specific regulation governing MLM leaves room for abuse and the emergence of unlawful pyramid schemes disguised as MLM business models. A particular challenge arises from the fact that modern pyramid structures are rarely presented as traditional profit-making schemes. In practice, contemporary digital models are often presented as “educational platforms”, “digital memberships”, “affiliate programmes” or “investment communities”, meaning that the formal label attached to a business model is far less significant than its actual economic structure.

Article 43 of the Trade Law expressly prohibits organising, conducting, advertising and encouraging pyramid selling schemes. Paragraph 2 of this Article provides that pyramid selling constitutes a form of trade whereby customers are enabled to purchase goods or services exclusively from persons included in a chain or network of resale of goods or services (members of the network), where the seller conditions the purchase upon an obligation to pay membership fees or other compensation to the organiser of the network or another network member; an obligation to purchase the same or other goods in quantities or values which the seller knows or must know are unreasonably high; or an obligation to find other persons who will engage in the resale of goods offered by the seller, where the right to receive remuneration for finding such persons is conditional upon prior payment or the provision of a special fee to the seller. In addition to prohibiting pyramid selling schemes, the Trade Law also establishes misdemeanour liability for violations of this prohibition. Pursuant to Article 68 of the Trade Law, a legal entity that organises, conducts, advertises or encourages pyramid selling may be subject to a fine ranging from RSD 500,000 to RSD 2,000,000.

In addition to the prohibition of pyramid selling under the Trade Law, certain models displaying characteristics of pyramid schemes may also constitute misleading commercial practices under the Consumer Protection Act of the Republic of Serbia. These include the creation, operation or advertising by a trader of a product sales system in which a consumer pays a fee for the opportunity to obtain income which does not depend on the success of selling a particular product, but rather on the participation of other consumers in that sales system (pyramid scheme). Pursuant to Article 187 of the Consumer Protection Act, a legal entity may be subject to a fine ranging from RSD 300,000 to RSD 2,000,000 if it misleads consumers in the manner prescribed by Articles 18-20 of the Consumer Protection Act. Given that the Act expressly recognises pyramid schemes as a form of misleading commercial practice, such models may also give rise to misdemeanour liability under consumer protection legislation.

The above provisions demonstrate that the legislature does not prohibit multi-level distribution as such, but rather business models in which recruitment of new participants represents the dominant source of income.

The Economic Source of Income Criterion

From both a legal and economic perspective, the essential distinction lies in the source of profit generation. In a legitimate MLM model, the product or service has independent market value and genuine demand, regardless of the recruitment of new members. Even if the recruitment of new members were to cease, such a business model could continue to operate based on the continued sale of products or services to end consumers.

By contrast, in pyramid structures, the product or service often plays a secondary role and primarily serves as a formal basis for charging entry fees or maintaining the recruitment system. Initial participation fees are often high and may be disguised as “mandatory starter packages”, “vouchers” or “educational levels”. Where the economic survival of a system is not based on genuine market demand, but rather on purchases made by participants within the system and the recruitment of new participants, such a model exhibits characteristics of a pyramid structure and carries a significant risk of economic unsustainability. For this reason, when assessing the legal classification of a particular model, the decisive issue is not whether a company formally sells a particular product or service, but whether the business model could operate sustainably without a constant influx of new members.

Civil Law Consequences

From the perspective of civil law, contracts for participation in systems displaying characteristics of pyramid selling may be deemed void under the general principles of contract law if they are contrary to mandatory statutory provisions, public policy or good morals. However, the assessment of invalidity always depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the content of the contractual relationship, as assessed by the court.

You can read the full article on Lexology: Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) and Pyramid Schemes in the Republic of Serbia: Where Is the Line Between a Lawful Business Model and Prohibited Practice? – Lexology

The post Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) and Pyramid Schemes in the Republic of Serbia: Where Is the Line Between a Lawful Business Model and Prohibited Practice? appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

The post Embedded Finance in Greece: Regulatory Classification, Credit Intermediation Risk, and a Moving Compliance Target appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Introduction

Greece has taken a significant step towards modernizing its tax administration with the introduction of a formal Advance Tax Ruling (“ATR”) framework. Enacted through Article 9A of the Code of Tax Procedure by Law 5301/2026, the new regime—effective from 1 October 2026—allows taxpayers to obtain binding guidance from the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (“AADE”) on the tax consequences of contemplated transactions before they are implemented.

Advance tax rulings have long been recognized as an important feature of modern tax administrations across Europe. They provide businesses and investors with greater certainty when undertaking complex transactions, facilitate investment decisions and reduce the likelihood of future tax disputes. By introducing a structured ruling mechanism, Greece aligns itself with the practice followed in many other European jurisdictions and reinforces its broader objective of promoting transparency, predictability and cooperative compliance.

What is an Advance Tax Ruling?

An AΤR is a written interpretation issued by AADE confirming how Greek tax or customs legislation should apply to a specific transaction or arrangement before it is implemented. In this sense, the ATR provides certainty as to how the existing legislative framework should be interpreted and applied to the specific facts presented by the applicant.

The scope of the new framework is deliberately broad. Taxpayers may request rulings in relation to virtually all taxes administered under the Code of Tax Procedure, including corporate income tax, personal income tax, VAT, Digital Transaction Fee and customs matters. This makes the Greek regime one of the most comprehensive advance ruling systems currently available within the European Union.

Who Can Apply and Under What Conditions?

The new framework is designed to resolve genuine interpretative uncertainty before a transaction takes place. Accordingly, an application will generally be admissible only where:

• the transaction or arrangement has not yet been implemented;
• the relevant facts are sufficiently clear and complete to enable a legal assessment; and
• the request raises a genuine “gap” regarding the interpretation or application of Greek tax or customs legislation (meaning an issue that is not addressed by any administrative circulare).

The ruling mechanism is therefore not intended to provide abstract legal opinions or confirm the straightforward application of clear statutory provisions. Instead, it is aimed at situations where uncertainty exists and taxpayers require certainty before proceeding with a proposed transaction.

Article 9A also expressly excludes certain matters from the scope of the regime. Advance tax rulings cannot be requested for:

• transfer pricing matters already covered by the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) framework;
• issues requiring the interpretation or application of foreign law; or
• matters that are already subject to administrative or judicial dispute resolution involving the applicant.

The Procedure

The ruling process is initiated by submitting an application to AADE together with the prescribed documentation and payment of the applicable administrative fee.

The legislation adopts a variable fee structure, ranging from EUR 3,500 to EUR 50,000, depending on factors such as the complexity of the request, the number of issues involved, the size of the applicant and whether expedited treatment is requested. Where the application is rejected within the statutory deadline, the amount exceeding the initial filing fee is refunded.

Although the level of the fees is higher than in some European jurisdictions, it reflects the highly specialised nature of the ruling process and seeks to ensure that the mechanism is used for transactions involving genuine interpretative uncertainty rather than theoretical or speculative questions.

You can read the full article here: Newsletter_Greece Introduces Advance Tax Rulings A New Era of Tax Certainty

The post Greece Introduces Advance Tax Rulings: A New Era of Tax Certainty appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

You can read the full article here: Towards a collective bargaining restoration: Law 5278/2026 and the fading of Memorandum-Era restrictions

The post Towards a collective bargaining restoration: Law 5278/2026 and the fading of Memorandum-Era restrictions appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

On 20 May 2026, Greece’s Ministry of Environment and Energy published a draft Special Spatial Framework for Renewable Energy Sources (EChP-APE) for public consultation. The framework replaces the 2008 siting regime and introduces binding constraints that will reshape how photovoltaic projects are developed, valued, and transacted. With installed RES capacity at approximately 18 GW and a licensing pipeline exceeding 110 GW, the new rules create a regulatory filter that converts previously a private-law commodity—into a scarce, regulated asset.

What the Framework Does

The draft introduces two principal instruments for Photovoltaic projects (PV). First, exclusion zones prohibit new installations in Natura 2000 areas, forests, wetlands, protected areas, and archaeological zones. Second, a quantitative land-coverage cap of 1.5% per Regional Unit applies to new PV stations that have not yet obtained Environmental Terms Approval (AEPO). The framework exempts projects already in operation or in advanced permitting. Of the roughly 110 GW pipeline, approximately 70 GW are protected by transitional provisions, while around 37 GW—21 GW PV and 16 GW wind at early licensing stages—remain exposed to the new constraints.

Land as a Regulated Scarcity Asset

Irradiation and clear titles are no longer sufficient. A viable PV site must now satisfy spatial eligibility, Regional Unit capacity, environmental clearance, grid availability, and local acceptance criteria. Developers should restructure land agreements to include conditions precedent tied to spatial eligibility, cap headroom, AEPO issuance, and grid connection—with termination rights if any condition fails. Overpaying for land in Regional Units approaching the 1.5% threshold is a quantifiable bankability risk.

Permitting Status and M&A Valuation

The transitional architecture creates a valuation bifurcation. Projects with AEPO sit on the protected side: they face no re-screening, enjoy compressed timelines, and benefit from increasing scarcity value. In M&A terms, this translates into a premium reflecting reduced regulatory risk, enhanced bankability, and timeline certainty. Buyers acquire not just megawatts but regulatory optionality—the right to develop in conditions that new entrants cannot replicate.

The premium is not automatic. Acquirers should diligence whether protected status is legally robust; whether the site is in a sensitive area carrying Habitats Directive Article 6(3) or community-opposition risk; whether grid connection is credible; and whether the transitional classification will survive potential legislative amendment.

Large Groups vs. Small Producers

Vertically integrated companies benefit from mature pipelines protected by transitional provisions, internal GIS and legal capabilities, relocation flexibility, and capacity to acquire repriced portfolios. Their principal risks are reputational exposure from grandfathered projects in sensitive zones and stranded land in saturated Regional Units.

Smaller producers face disproportionate compliance costs and intensified competition for eligible land. Without reserved electrical space, priority mechanisms for energy communities, or simplified permitting for smaller installations, the framework risks accelerating market consolidation.

Grid Risk

The framework does not integrate grid capacity into spatial licensing. A project may satisfy every spatial criterion yet remain unfinanceable if it cannot secure a credible connection, faces structural curtailment, or requires co-located storage. Grid risk is now as material as permitting status to project valuation.

Practical Recommendations

PV businesses should: (1) map portfolios against exclusion zones and Regional Unit cap data; (2) classify projects by permitting status relative to the transitional line; (3) renegotiate land options to include spatial eligibility and cap-headroom conditions; (4) diligence grid connection and curtailment exposure; (5) develop a community-benefit strategy for projects above 500 kW; and (6) prepare for M&A repricing—as potential acquirers of distressed early-stage portfolios and as sellers of advanced-stage assets.

You can read the full article here: Greece’s Draft RES Spatial Framework: Why Photovoltaic Project Value Will Turn on Permitting, Land and Grid Risk – Lexology

The post Greece’s Draft RES Spatial Framework: Why Photovoltaic Project Value Will Turn on Permitting, Land and Grid Risk appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

On 26 February 2025, the European Commission presented the “Omnibus I” package of proposals, aimed at reducing the administrative burden on businesses, strengthening the competitiveness of the European economy, and simplifying sustainability obligations without abandoning the core objectives of the European Green Deal. Proposal COM(2025) 81 is central to the reform, as it amends the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSRD and CSDDD) and related legislation. For Greek businesses, the package should be read less as a withdrawal from ESG and more as a shift toward a more proportionate, workable and commercially relevant sustainability framework.

Why does the Omnibus matter for Greek businesses?

Experience with the CSRD and CSDDD has shown that sustainability compliance can be costly, complex and resource-intensive, particularly for smaller and mid-sized undertakings. In markets such as Greece, where many businesses operate as suppliers, borrowers, sponsors, contractors or investee companies within larger European value chains, the challenge has not only been formal legal compliance, but also the indirect flow-down of ESG information requests from banks, customers, investors and public or private procurement processes.

According to the Commission, the Omnibus package is expected to deliver administrative relief of more than EUR 6 billion per year, as obligations are concentrated on businesses considered to have the greatest environmental and social impact. In practice, however, the benefit for Greek companies is likely to be relative rather than absolute: lenders, strategic customers, international groups and institutional investors are expected to continue requesting reliable ESG information through financing arrangements, supply-chain policies, investment processes and contractual undertakings.

Key proposed changes to the CSRD

The most significant change concerns the reporting framework applicable to undertakings. The proposed Directive provides that sustainability reporting obligations will apply to undertakings with more than 1,000 employees, provided they also meet the relevant financial criteria. Following the alignment of national laws, the Commission estimates that approximately 80% of companies that were expected to fall within the mandatory CSRD reporting regime will be exempted. The Omnibus proposal also provides that undertakings within the scope of the CSRD should not be able to require companies outside the Directive’s scope to provide sustainability information beyond what is set out in a simplified voluntary reporting standard.

Equally important is the simplification of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), with the aim of focusing on core sustainability indicators and improving proportionality without undermining the quality and comparability of disclosed information. This is particularly relevant for Greek small and medium-sized enterprises, which may not be directly in scope but may still need to respond to ESG questionnaires, onboarding requirements and tender or financing requests from larger counterparties.

The simplification also extends to the EU Taxonomy Regulation, a key tool for assessing the environmental sustainability of economic activities, including through the introduction of materiality criteria. For the Greek market, this remains relevant for bankability and investment appetite in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, real estate, transport, tourism and manufacturing, where access to financing and institutional capital increasingly depends on credible sustainability data.

Proposed recalibration of the CSDDD

The Omnibus proposal provides for the postponement of the Directive’s first application until 2028, a stronger focus of due diligence on direct business partners, the review of indirect business relationships where there are indications of heightened risk, the reduction of the frequency of risk assessments from an annual to a five-year basis, and the narrowing of certain requirements relating to stakeholder engagement and value-chain monitoring. The direction of travel is to move due diligence away from a continuous, highly expansive exercise and toward a more targeted, risk-based and manageable compliance system.

What should Greek businesses do now?

For many companies, the Omnibus represents welcome relief in terms of cost and administrative burden. The practical message for the Greek market, however, is that ESG will remain relevant where it affects financing, procurement, supply-chain access, corporate governance, M&A readiness and investor confidence. Companies should therefore focus on a proportionate ESG baseline: identify which information is actually requested by banks, customers, investors and tendering authorities; assess whether the group or its key counterparties remain in scope; and maintain a practical dataset that can be used consistently across commercial relationships.

This approach is particularly important in transactions and financing. A Greek target, borrower, sponsor or supplier that can provide concise, reliable and decision-useful ESG information is likely to be better placed in due diligence, credit approval, procurement evaluation and negotiations with international counterparties, even where it is not itself subject to full mandatory reporting.

You can read the article on Lexology here: “The EU “Omnibus I” Package: Practical Implications for the Greek Market” – Lexology

The post “The EU “Omnibus I” Package: Practical Implications for the Greek Market” appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Law 5313/2026 (Government Gazette A’ 102/25.06.2026) introduces significant amendments to the Greek tax framework applicable to investment funds and investment management activities. The new provisions clarify the tax treatment of foreign investment funds, introduce safe harbors against the creation of Greek tax residence and permanent establishment in specified circumstances, and expand the existing carried interest regime to cover contractual performance-based remuneration.

Tax Treatment of foreign funds

Article 97(1) of Law 5313/2026 amends Article 56 of Law 4706/2020, clarifying the tax treatment of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) falling within the scope of Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD). The amendment corrects a legislative cross-reference and confirms that foreign EU AIFs remain outside the scope of Greek income taxation.

The legislation further extends the same tax treatment to corresponding collective investment vehicles (hereafter “CIVs”) established outside the European Union, provided that:

• they are not established in jurisdictions included in the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes; and
• they are supervised, directly or indirectly through their manager, by a competent authority accredited with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).

According to the explanatory memorandum, the notion of CIVs follows the OECD approach and refers to regulated, widely held investment vehicles holding diversified investment portfolios. As a result, the same tax treatment now applies to qualifying collective investment vehicles established both within and outside the European Union.

Tax Residence and Permanent Establishment

The reform also introduces an important statutory safe harbor designed to facilitate the establishment of investment management functions in Greece.

Firstly, the legislation confirms that the investment activities of qualifying AIFs and CIVs in Greece do not, by themselves, create Greek tax residence or a permanent establishment. This protection extends not only to the investment funds themselves, but also to legal persons and legal entities in which the relevant funds directly or indirectly hold at least 95% of the participation interests and which operate exclusively as holding or investment vehicles (“investment entities”), as well as to fund managers and investors.

Secondly, the legislation provides that the provision of portfolio management, investment management, investment advisory and ancillary services by a Greek management company does not, in itself, create Greek tax residence or a permanent establishment for the relevant investment funds, their investment entities (including sub-funds), fund managers or investors.

These provisions significantly strengthen legal and tax certainty for international fund structures and remove an important source of uncertainty for groups considering the establishment of investment management functions in Greece. This particularly important for hedge funds and other actively managed strategies, where investment decisions are often taken in real time and operational realities do not always align with traditional governance models.

You can read the full newsletter here: Newsletter_Law 53132026 Key Tax Reforms for Foreign Investment Funds, Investment Management Companies and Carried Interest

The post Law 5313/2026: Key Tax Reforms for Foreign Investment Funds, Investment Management Companies and Carried Interest appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.