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.

Rokas Law Firm was proud to support the 8th International Arbitration Conference, jointly organized by NOMIKI BIBLIOTHIKI and EODID Athens Mediation & Arbitration Organization, which brought together leading practitioners, academics and in-house counsel came together to discuss the challenges shaping the future of dispute resolution.

Supporting initiatives that promote excellence in international arbitration and encourage meaningful dialogue within the global legal community is at the core of our firm’s commitment.

Our Partner and Head of Arbitration Practice, Antonios Tsavdaridis contributed to the discussion as a speaker in the panel “Can Arbitration Defend Itself? Tribunal Powers, Institutional Responses and Procedural Integrity”. His insights highlighted the importance of striking the right balance between robust tribunal powers, procedural fairness, and the integrity of the arbitral process.

The post Rokas Law Firm supports the 8th International Arbitration Conference appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

On 26 March 2024, Directive 2024/927/EU “amending Directives 2011/61/EU and 2009/65/EC as regards delegation arrangements, liquidity risk management, supervisory reporting, the provision of depositary and custody services and loan origination by alternative investment funds”, also known as AIFMD II, was published and entered into force on 15 April 2024. The deadline for Member States to transpose the Directive was 16 April 2026. In Greece, on 26 May 2026, the Minister of National Economy and Finance presented before the Council of Ministers a new bill intended, inter alia, to transpose the Directive into national law.

During the period of application of Directive 2011/61/EU, the framework proved successful, with AIFs accounting for approximately one third of the European investment fund sector by the end of 2020 and the overall size of the Union AIF market recording growth more than 15% between 2020 and 2022. Nevertheless, it was considered that the sector’s growth potential remained greater, provided that institutional investors were afforded a broader range of investment opportunities and the competitiveness of the Capital Markets Union was further strengthened. Through the amending Directive, several significant reforms were introduced, the most important being the establishment of harmonized requirements applicable to AIFMs managing loan-originating AIFs. Emphasis was also placed on delegation arrangements, cross-border access to depositary services, enhanced supervisory oversight and the facilitation of the use of liquidity management tools throughout the Union. The changes under AIFMD II apply to all EEA full-scope AIFMs who manage AIFs engaged in loan origination. Consumer lending is expressly excluded from the scope of the amending Directive, as it is governed by other Union legislative acts, while Member States remain free to prohibit lending by AIFs to consumers within their territories. The Directive appears to aim to align, to the extent that there is no objective or functional justification for differentiation, the compliance requirements applicable to AIFMs and UCITS management companies.

First, considering the crucial role played by AIFs in financing small and medium-sized enterprises and with a view to addressing both microprudential and macroprudential financial risks, Directive 2011/61/EU was amended so as expressly to recognize direct lending as a permissible activity of an AIF. Provision was also made to ensure that indirect loan origination by an AIF, through third parties or special purpose vehicles, falls within the scope of the lending framework, thereby preventing circumvention of the relevant provisions. Following this reform, the list of activities that may be carried out by an AIFM was expanded to include, inter alia, credit servicing activities and loan origination on behalf of an AIF, given that under the previous regime the national laws of certain Member States prohibited lending activities by AIFMs.

To enhance legal certainty for AIFMs and UCITS management companies regarding the services they provide to third parties, it is clarified that appropriate measures must be always taken to ensure the proper management of conflicts of interest. AIFMs are prohibited from receiving loans from AIFs under their management or from entities connected with them. Transparency requirements concerning the human and technical resources of AIFMs have also been strengthened and are calibrated according to the size and complexity of the relevant AIFM and AIF. Emphasis is placed, in relation to both AIFs and UCITS, on transparency regarding the integration of sustainability risks and environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into investment decision-making processes. In order to provide a more reliable overall picture of delegation activities within the Union and to eliminate the phenomenon of “letter-box entities” acting as managers, supervisory authorities will henceforth receive up-to-date information concerning the essential features of delegation arrangements, as well as information regarding portfolio composition and liquidity management, thereby enabling them to address redemption pressures more effectively during periods of market stress. In this manner, the focus of transparency shifts from the level of individual investment vehicles to systemic risks and interconnectedness among participants in the financial markets. A further significant reform is the introduction, under certain conditions, of a cross-border depositary regime, whereby Member States may allow their competent authorities to authorize the appointment of a depositary established in another Member State.

Furthermore, the supervisory reporting process applicable to UCITS is standardized to improve the collection and exchange of information and to address overlaps between reporting requirements arising under Union and national law. In addition, to mitigate moral hazard, risk-retention requirements are introduced in relation to the transfer of loans to third parties. More specifically, AIFMs must ensure that the AIFs they manage retain for a specified period a minimum of 5% of the notional value of each loan originated by the relevant AIF and subsequently transferred to a third party. Accordingly, the principle is established that an AIF may not completely divest itself of a loan that it originally originated; rather, it must retain a minimum economic interest and continue to bear part of the associated credit risk. At the same time, AIFMs are prohibited from managing AIFs whose sole purpose in originating loans is to sell those loans to third parties (“originate-to-distribute strategy”). It is thus made clear that loans must be originated exclusively for the purpose of investing the capital raised by the AIF in accordance with its investment strategy.

You can read the article on Lexology here: AIFMD II: The New EU Framework for Loan-Origination Funds

The post AIFMD II: The New EU Framework for Loan-Origination Funds appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Foreign investors entering the Serbian market are often reassured by initial familiarity of the transaction environment.

The corporate registry (Serbian Business Registers Agency) is fully transparent and digitalized, the legal framework mirrors continental European corporate structures, and transaction documents often reflect concepts and drafting techniques commonly used in European M&A practice.

However, that apparent familiarity should not be mistaken for complete alignment with the EU acquis, nor does it guarantee the absence of deep-seated local complexities.

While the European Commission’s 2025 Serbia Report acknowledges a “good level of preparation” in the field of company law, full harmonisation with the EU acquis remains a work in progress. Although substantial legislative amendments governing cross-border conversions, mergers, and divisions, as well as the legal framework for the European Company (SE) were adopted in March 2025, their implementation has been postponed until 1 January 2027, while additional regulatory alignment measures continue to be introduced. Consequently, M&A risk in Serbia operates on two distinct levels: the formal-legislative (navigating delayed enforcement and evolving statutory alignment) and the practical-commercial (risks that remain completely invisible within a standard virtual data room (VDR)).

Ownership arrangements, related-party dealings, informal decision-making channels, undocumented commercial dependencies, tax exposures, employee practices, legacy liabilities and relationships with key customers or suppliers are not always fully visible from corporate records or from standard due diligence materials.

For that reason, foreign investors should approach Serbian M&A transactions not only as a document-review exercise, but as a broader legal, regulatory and factual investigation into how the target business is actually owned, controlled, financed and operated.

What the VDR Won’t Tell You

Many prominent Serbian companies, particularly privately-owned and founder-driven businesses, developed during periods of rapid regulatory transition. To survive, they relied on tactical improvisation rather than rigid corporate governance. As a result, the way a target business actually operates is often not fully reflected in the documents uploaded to the VDR. Foreign buyers routinely underestimate just how much institutional knowledge, commercial leverage, and operational continuity depend on specific individuals rather than institutionalised systems.

This becomes visible surprisingly late in the process. A buyer may complete a thorough legal due diligence process and still fail to identify the main nuances: Who genuinely controls key customer relationships? Which operational decisions are made via informal handshakes? How dependent is the entire business model on a founder whose actual influence far exceeds their official title in the corporate registry?

In Serbia, due diligence should be approached as an operational investigation rather than just a mere paper-verification exercise.

You can read the article on Lexology here: Beyond the Virtual Data Room: Real M&A Risks for Foreign Investors in Serbia

The post Beyond the Virtual Data Room: Real M&A Risks for Foreign Investors in Serbia appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Short-term rentals have evolved into one of the most dynamic forms of real estate exploitation, with increasing economic and tax significance. This development has led to the gradual establishment of a stricter legislative framework, which is not limited solely to the tax treatment of rental activity, but also extends to issues of supervision, operational standards, and enforcement mechanisms. Within this context, the legislator seeks to establish clear limits and rules, shaping a more organized and regulated operating environment for the short-term rental market.

The Revised Framework for Short-Term Rentals

The concept of short-term rental is expressly defined in Article 111 of Law 4446/2016, as amended by Article 28 of Law 5073/2023. In particular, according to the above legislative provision, a short-term rental is defined as the lease or sublease of a property, regardless of whether it is listed on a digital platform within the sharing economy or not, and regardless of whether the agreement is concluded through a digital platform, for a specific period of less than sixty (60) days, provided that no services are offered other than accommodation and the provision of bed linens. Based on the literal interpretation of the above provision two key conditions ultimately determine whether a property lease falls within the “law of short-term rentals.” These conditions concern the agreed duration of the lease and the range of services provided by the lessor. Specifically, for a lease to be considered “short-term,” thereby falling under the provisions of the amended Article 111 of Law 4446/2016 and the relevant tax regulations, the agreed duration must be less than sixty days and, in the event that services are provided by the lessor to the lessee, such services must be limited exclusively to the provision of bed linens. For the sake of clarity, it is not required that both the use of the property for a specific period and the provision of bed linen services coexist cumulatively. It is sufficient for the property to be leased for a period of less than 60 days, provided that no other services are offered apart from the aforementioned. No additional conditions are required for a property lease to ultimately fall under this special regime of short-term rentals.

For a better understanding of the new legislative framework governing short-term rentals, it should be noted that prior to the amendment of Article 111 of Law 4446/2016 by Article 28 of Law 5073/2023, short-term rentals were considered exclusively those concluded through a digital platform (e.g., Airbnb, Booking, Vrbo) with a duration of less than one year. Under the current regime, however, a lease does not need to be concluded through an online platform in order to fall under the above special framework, nor does the property need to have been advertised or made available through such platforms.

As previously analyzed, the criteria examined in order to classify a lease as a short-term rental under Article 111 of Law 4446/2016 are: a) the granting of the use of the property by the lessor to the lessee for a period shorter than 60 days, and b) the absence of additional services provided by the lessor to the lessee, apart from the provision of bed linens.

The conclusion of short-term rental agreements through digital platforms within the sharing economy is still permitted under the new legislative framework, subject to the following conditions. The property manager^[1] must be registered in the “Short-Term Accommodation Property Registry” maintained by the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (IAPR), and the registration number in the Registry must mandatorily accompany the property listing in a visible location on digital platforms and in every promotional medium.

You can read the full article on Lexology here: Short-Term Rentals: Stricter Regulatory Framework – New Obligations – Lexology

The post Short-Term Rentals: Stricter Regulatory Framework – New Obligations appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Introduction

Year in review

The post New Publication: In-Depth – Insurance and Reinsurance Law Edition 14 appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

Over the past several years, Serbia has gradually transformed its tax compliance framework through the implementation of mandatory electronic invoicing and increased digital supervision by the tax authorities. What initially appeared to be a technical modernization initiative has, in practice, evolved into a much broader compliance ecosystem affecting accounting, finance, legal, and operational risk management within companies.

The latest amendments applicable from April 2026 continue this trend by introducing additional obligations concerning internal invoicing through the Serbian Electronic Invoicing System (“SEF”). Although internal invoices have long existed under Serbian VAT regulations, the new rules significantly change their practical role and compliance importance. Transactions and VAT adjustments that previously remained largely within internal accounting records are now becoming part of a centralized electronic reporting structure directly accessible to the Serbian tax authorities.

It is noted that the obligation applies to business entities in B2B transactions (between businesses) and B2G transactions (between businesses and public sector entities), whereas in B2C transactions, (business to consumer) the obligation of universal mandatory electronic invoicing has not yet been introduced. In essence, internal VAT adjustments are no longer intended to remain exclusively within internal accounting records. Instead, they are becoming part of a centralized electronic reporting structure directly visible to the authorities. For many companies, this represents a shift from traditional bookkeeping practice toward a far more transparent and controlled compliance environment.

From Internal Accounting Documentation to Regulatory Reporting Instrument

Historically, internal invoices in Serbia were often treated as supporting accounting documentation prepared primarily for VAT calculation purposes. In practice, many businesses handled such documents manually, often without standardized workflows or dedicated internal control procedures.

By requiring certain internal invoices and VAT adjustment mechanisms to be processed through SEF, the legislator has effectively transformed internal invoicing into a formal regulatory instrument. This is particularly relevant in situations involving reverse-charge VAT obligations, corrections of the taxable base, VAT adjustments following invoice cancellations or amendments, advance payments and subsequent reconciliations, as well as corrective documentation linked to previously reported VAT transactions. The practical consequence is straightforward: transactions that previously remained largely within the internal accounting sphere are now entering a system of centralized electronic supervision maintained by the tax authorities.

Increased Transparency and Expanded Audit Visibility

At first glance, the amendments may appear administrative or technical in nature. However, their broader significance lies in the enhanced transactional visibility they provide to the Serbian tax authorities.

Through SEF, the authorities already possess extensive insight into outgoing and incoming invoices. The inclusion of internal invoices further expands this visibility by enabling regulators to monitor correction histories, VAT adjustments, timing of corrections, relationship between original and corrective invoices, internal tax calculations and reconciliation consistency between accounting and VAT recording significantly greater detail, thereby creating a fundamentally different audit environment.

As a result, accounting inconsistencies are more easily identifiable during audits. For example, where a company issues a corrective invoice but delays the corresponding VAT adjustment through SEF, discrepancies between VAT returns, accounting ledgers, and electronic invoice records may be automatically detected through cross-checking mechanisms.

As Serbian tax supervision becomes increasingly data-driven, compliance exposure is no longer limited to incorrect VAT outcomes alone. The integrity, timing, and consistency of the underlying process have become equally important.

You can read the full article here: Mandatory Internal Invoicing Through SEF – A New Compliance Reality for Serbian Companies in 2026

The post Mandatory Internal Invoicing Through SEF – A New Compliance Reality for Serbian Companies in 2026 appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

I. Introduction

Law 5123/2024, in full force since 15 July 2025, is the most extensive reform of Greek security-interest law since the introduction of the fictitious pledge (πλασματικό ενέχυρο) by Law 2844/2000. Subject to exemptions, it is deemed to cure the twin pathologies of the previous framework, namely geographical fragmentation and fragmentation by reference to the object of the pledge and the nature of the secured claim.

II. How the Registry works

The Unified Electronic Pledge Registry (Ενιαίο Ηλεκτρονικό Μητρώο Ενεχύρων) introduced by Law 5123/2024 is end-to-end digital, maintained by the Hellenic Cadastre under Law 4512/2018, and accessible through gov.gr at enexyra.ktimatologio.gr around the clock. Article 4 eases the form requirements and a private document of certified date, a qualified electronic document under Law 4727/2020, or a “Digital Document Certification” through gov.gr each suffice. The Registry conducts a formal completeness review under Article 20, with rejections issued under Article 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ΚΠολΔ) and providing for a cure period. Search rights extend to attorneys, notaries, bailiffs, public authorities, and any pledge, pledgor, or debtor of the claim.

III. The exceptions

Three carve-outs narrow the Registry’s scope. First, and of utmost importance, bank deposits pledged in favour of the bank itself (Article 5(2)) and the pledge takes effect on constitution, without any registration required. Second, pledges over dematerialised shares listed on a regulated market (Article 11(3)) continue to be constituted under Law 4569/2018 and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 (CSDR), through entry into the Dematerialised Securities System (ΣΑΤ). Third, pledges constituted before entry into force remain governed by the superseded provisions (Article 25). Unlike the move from the former mortgage registries (Υποθηκοφυλακεία) to the Cadastre regime, no mandatory migration is provided or imposed.

IV. Mergers and Acquisitions: a tug-of-war of interests

M&A negotiation is a choreography of planned steps with occasional improvisation. Price, payment terms, reciprocal undertakings, and the allocation of liability for breaches of law or contract all enter the equation. Encumbrances over movables, rights and receivables sit prominently among the target’s obligations; the seller, in turn, is keen to secure payment of the price. When both sides dig in, trust erodes and deals collapse.

You can read the article on Lexology here: Security interests in motion: Greece’s Unified Electronic Pledge Registry and its impact on M&A – Lexology

The post Security interests in motion: Greece’s Unified Electronic Pledge Registry and its impact on M&A appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.

1. Το μέσο επίτευξής του είναι

Α η πρόληψη του τροχαίου και

Β η εγγύηση της άμεσης & πλήρους καταβολής της αποζημίωσης που δικαιούται ο ζημιωθείς στο τροχαίο, η οποία επιτυγχάνεται με την νομοθέτηση αστικής ευθύνης άνευ πταίσματος και υποχρεωτικής ασφάλισης. Το εύρος της εγγυημένης αποζημίωσης που δικαιούται ο ζημιωθείς καθορίζεται εξελικτικά, κυρίως από τις κοινωνικοπολιτικές αντιλήψεις που διαμορφώνουν το διαρκώς μεταβαλλόμενο νομοθετικό πλαίσιο.

Ο σκοπός της άμεσης & πλήρους αποζημίωσης δεν μπορεί να ικανοποιηθεί χωρίς το ΕΚ, λόγω της παθολογίας που παρουσιάζει τόσο το σύστημα της αστικής ευθύνης – όταν το ζημιογόνο όχημα είναι άγνωστο – όσο και το σύστημα της ασφάλισης – όταν το όχημα είναι ανασφάλιστο, αλλά και το σύστημα διακυβέρνησης της ασφαλιστικής επιχείρησης και ασφαλιστικής εποπτείας – όταν η ασφαλιστική εταιρία του ζημιώσαντος ήταν αφερέγγυα. Το ΕΚ καλύπτει τα κενά που αφήνει το σύστημα που βασίζεται στην αστική ευθύνη και στην ασφαλιστική κάλυψη της ευθύνης αυτής.

2. Για πρώτη φορά, με τη νέα Οδηγία ασφάλισης αυτοκινήτων 2021/2118 που συμπληρώνει την πάντα ισχύουσα 2009/103, εισάγεται σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο ίδιος νόμιμος λόγος ευθύνης των Εγγυητικών Κεφαλαίων των Κρατών-μελών – όπως και του ΕΚ – όπου εδρεύει η αφερέγγυα ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση, απ’ ευθείας έναντι των ζημιωθέντων, προς άμεση και πλήρη αποζημίωσή τους. Η ευθύνη του ΕΚ επί αφερεγγυότητας καλύπτει τέσσερις περιπτώσεις : α) ατύχημα που έγινε στην Ελλάδα από οδηγό ασφαλισμένο σε αφερέγγυα ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση με έδρα στην Ελλάδα, β) ατύχημα που έγινε στην Ελλάδα από οδηγό ασφαλισμένο σε αφερέγγυα ασφαλιστική με έδρα σε άλλο Κράτος – μέλος, γ) ατύχημα που έγινε σε άλλο Κράτος – μέλος από ασφαλισμένο σε αφερέγγυα ασφαλιστική με έδρα στην Ελλάδα, δ) ατύχημα που έγινε σε άλλο Κράτος – μέλος από ασφαλισμένο σε αφερέγγυα ασφαλιστική με έδρα σε άλλο Κράτος μέλος (εφόσον, εννοείται, ο ζημιωθείς έχει ως τόπο συνήθους διαμονής του την Ελλάδα). Ικανοποιείται έτσι η επιταγή του ενωσιακού δικαίου προς ταχεία και πλήρη ικανοποίηση του ζημιωθέντα σε τροχαίο ατύχημα, ισότιμα και χωρίς διάκριση ως προς την έδρα της ασφαλιστικής επιχείρησης του ζημιογόνου οχήματος ή του Κράτους – μέλους όπου συνέβη το ατύχημα. Όμως, η πρόβλεψη της Οδηγίας να αποστέλλει το ΕΚ, εντός τριών μηνών από την παραλαβή της αίτησης αποζημίωσης του αιτούντα προς αυτό, αιτιολογημένη προσφορά ή αιτιολογημένη άρνηση, ενσωματώθηκε με το ν. 5113/2024 κατά τρόπο που την καθιστά ανεφάρμοστη. Τούτο διότι, πρώτον, ο νόμος προβλέπει ότι το ΕΚ θα πρέπει να αποστείλει στον εκκαθαριστή της αφερέγγυας ασφαλιστικής, την αίτηση αποζημίωσης που παρέβαλε, ο οποίος εκκαθαριστής θα πρέπει, εντός προθεσμίας 30 ημερών, να αποστείλει στο ΕΚ την τοποθέτησή του ως προς το αν δέχεται την αίτηση και να τη συνοδεύει από αιτιολογημένη προσφορά αποζημίωσης ή απόρριψη της αίτησης αποζημίωσης· ακολούθως, το ΕΚ θα πρέπει να αποστείλει προσφορά αποζημίωσης ή απόρριψη της αίτησης αποζημίωσης προς τον αιτούντα εντός συνολικά 3 μηνών από την παραλαβή της αίτησης αποζημίωσης εκ μέρους του ΕΚ. Δεύτερον, γιατί ο ν. 5113/2024 προβλέπει σε όλα τα σημεία των ως άνω νέων ρυθμίσεων, επιφύλαξη να τηρείται η διαδικασία του άρθρου 242 παρ. 3 ν. 4364/2016, που είναι διαδικασία της εκκαθάρισης. Τούτο σημαίνει αναμονή (έως) 30 ημερών από το διορισμό του εκκαθαριστή έως την πρόσκλησή του προς τους δικαιούχους απαιτήσεων προς αναγγελία αυτών, πλέον τριών εβδομάδων κατά τις οποίες επαναλαμβάνεται η δημοσίευση της σχετικής πρόσκλησης, πλέον 4 μηνών από την τελευταία δημοσίευση για την αναγγελία των απαιτήσεων, πλέον 15 ημερών, μετά την πάροδο των οποίων αρχίζει η διαδικασία της επαλήθευσης που «ολοκληρώνεται το συντομότερο δυνατόν», πλέον 2 μηνών για ανάρτηση της κατάστασης δικαιούχων «απαιτήσεων από ασφάλιση», πλέον τριών εβδομάδων κατά τις οποίες η κατάσταση δημοσιεύεται σε εφημερίδες, πλέον 45 ημερών από την τελευταία δημοσίευση προς υποβολή αντιρρήσεων κατά της κατάστασης. Έτσι, αν ακολουθήσουμε την επιφύλαξη, αναγκαία καταργείται η τρίμηνη προθεσμία απάντησης στην αίτηση αποζημίωσης του ζημιωθέντα τρίτου, ενώ αν ακολουθήσουμε την τρίμηνη προθεσμία, καταργείται η επιφύλαξη. Αντιμετωπίζονται, δηλαδή, οι ζημιωθέντες τρίτοι από τον νόμο της μεταφοράς της Οδηγίας, όπως οι λοιποί πιστωτές της αφερέγγυας ασφαλιστικής επιχείρησης, παρότι δεν ικανοποιούνται, όπως αυτοί, από ό,τι τυχόν απομείνει από το προϊόν της εκκαθάρισης, αλλά αποκλειστικά από την περιουσία του ΕΚ που καταβάλει σε αυτούς, ό,τι θα δικαιούντο αν δεν είχε κηρυχθεί η ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση σε ασφαλιστική εκκαθάριση.

3. Η Οδηγία και ο εθνικός νόμος έχουν αυστηροποιήσει τις κυρώσεις κατά των παραβατών της υποχρέωσης ασφάλισης, ώστε να μην επιβαρύνεται το ΕΚ με αποζημιώσεις τρίτων ζημιωθέντων από ανασφάλιστα οχήματα, άλλως να περιορίζεται η ευθύνη του. Τούτο δικαιολογείται παρόλο που το ΕΚ είναι ν.π. ιδιωτικού δικαίου, γιατί είναι μη εμπορική επιχείρηση, που επιτελεί κοινωνικό σκοπό, όπως γίνεται δεκτό από τον Άρειο Πάγο και σε άλλα εθνικά δίκαια, όπως στη Γαλλία όπου το Γαλλικό Ακυρωτικό έχει κρίνει ότι ο αντίστοιχος του ΕΚ οργανισμός (Fonds de Garantie des Assurances Obligatoires de dommages) εξυπηρετεί το δημόσιο συμφέρον.

4. Στο όχι απώτερο μέλλον αναμένεται η κυκλοφορία «πλήρως αυτόνομων» οχημάτων [ΑΟ], όπου το όχημα θα οδηγείται χωρίς οδηγό ή χωρίς κατ’ ανάγκη σύμπραξη οδηγού. Με το ισχύον νομικό καθεστώς, ο ζημιωθείς μπορεί να στραφεί κατά του κατόχου/κυρίου του ΑΟ και της ασφαλιστικής εταιρίας που παρέχει κάλυψη αστικής ευθύνης αυτών, καθόσον και στην ασφάλιση ΑΟ θα υπάρχει κάτοχος / κύριος. Η δε ασφαλιστική επιχείρηση που κατέβαλε αποζημίωση στον τρίτο ζημιωθέντα θα μπορεί να στραφεί:

Α. Κατά των «φορέων ΑΟ» που μπορεί να είναι διάφορα πρόσωπα, με βάση την νέα Οδηγία για τα ελαττωματικά προϊόντα που εισάγει αυστηρή ευθύνη και συγκεκριμένα κατά [1] του κατασκευαστή ή πάροχου του ΑΟ, αλλά και [2] των παρόχων ψηφιακών τεχνολογιών, [3] δημιουργών συστημάτων ΤΝ συμπεριλαμβανομένων και [4] φορέων συστημάτων πλοήγησης και [5] λογισμικού, στα οποία βασίζεται το AO και επηρεάζουν την ασφάλεια στην οδήγησή του. Αντικατάσταση της κατά της ασφαλιστικής επιχείρησης ευθείας αγωγής με ευθεία αγωγή κατά των υπαιτίων με βάση την Οδηγία για τα ελαττωματικά προϊόντα, δεν πρέπει να γίνει αποδεκτή τόσο χάριν απλοποίησης και μη αλλαγής του σημερινού καθεστώτος, με εισαγωγή περιττής διακεκριμένης ρύθμισης, όσο και γιατί η Οδηγία δεν είναι ισοδυνάμου αποτελέσματος με την ευθεία αγωγή κατά του κατόχου· ή

Β. Κατά του χειριστή του ΑΟ ήτοι του προσώπου που [1] έδωσε λαθεμένες / παράνομες εντολές ή [2] είχε δώσει δεδομένα στο ΑΟ κατά παράβαση των οδηγιών του κατασκευαστή / φορέα ΑΟ ή δεν είχε ακολουθήσει υποδείξεις/προειδοποιήσεις του κατασκευαστή / προμηθευτή του ΑΟ. Ο χειριστής του ΑΟ δεν πρέπει να έχει αντικειμενική ευθύνη, η δε έκταση της ευθύνης του δεν πρέπει να ισούται με την απεριόριστη ευθύνη που έχει ο κάτοχος μη αυτόνομου ή ετερόνομου οχήματος [ΕΟ], αλλά να είναι ανάλογη με την υποκειμενική ευθύνη του στην πρόκληση της ζημιάς.

Συνεπώς, παραμένει το σημερινό καθεστώς της αποζημίωσης του τρίτου ζημιωθέντα όταν το όχημα που προκάλεσε το ατύχημα ήταν ΑΟ, όμως στο κόστος της ασφάλισης θα πρέπει να συμμετάσχει και ο κατασκευαστής του. Τούτο γιατί στα ΕΟ, τα ατυχήματα που οφείλονται σε ελάττωμα του οχήματος, σύμφωνα με στατιστικές που αναρτιούνται στο διαδίκτυο, καταλαμβάνουν μόνο το 1% αποδιδόμενα σε ποσοστό άνω του 70% σε ανθρώπινο λάθος, ενώ στα ΑΟ ισχύει σχεδόν το αντίστροφο, με τον παράγοντα ελαττώματος του οχήματος και του ηλεκτρονικού του συστήματος, που συνεπάγεται ευθύνη του κατασκευαστή, να καταλαμβάνουν άνω του 80% των ατυχημάτων (εννοείται, σε χώρες που επιτρέπεται ήδη η κυκλοφορία των ΑΟ). Σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις παραμένει και η ευθύνη του ΕΚ, αλλά περιορισμένη, αφού άγνωστα και ανασφάλιστα ΑΟ προφανώς θα υπάρχουν πολύ λιγότερα.

Αποτελεί, επομένως, ο θεσμός του ΕΕ την πιο έντονη έκφανση του κοινωνικού ρόλου που έχει ανατεθεί στην ιδιωτική ασφάλιση τόσο από τη Χώρα μας όσο και από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Μέσω των εισφορών της αγοράς ασφάλισης ευθύνης από ατυχήματα αυτοκινήτων καλύπτονται τα κενά που αφήνει το σύστημα της αυστηρής αστικής ευθύνης και της υποχρεωτικής ασφάλισης, ώστε ο ζημιωθείς να αποζημιώνεται πάντοτε άμεσα και πλήρως για ό,τι δικαιούται.

Ωστόσο, η άρτια θέσπιση και εφαρμογή του συστήματος αποζημίωσης των ζημιωθέντων σε τροχαία ατυχήματα βρίσκεται σε αντίθεση με την εφαρμογή ενός αποτελεσματικού συστήματος πρόληψης τροχαίων ατυχημάτων, καθώς τα τροχαία εξακολουθούν να αντιμετωπίζονται σε μεγάλο βαθμό ως “κανονικότητα”, με στόχο τη μείωση και όχι την εξάλειψή τους.

The post Ο πρωτεύων σκοπός: η προστασία των ανθρώπων από τα τροχαία ατυχήματα appeared first on Rokas Law Firm.