CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16739/20 Dimitrios TORRIS against Greece lodged on 12 March 2020 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the limited responsibility of the Auxiliary Fund, which is released under article 19 paragraph 5 of law no. 489/1976 from the obligation to pay the insurance indemnity in cases where the damages have been covered by a social security fund. In particular, the applicant was responsible for a road accident that occurred on 21 October 2007. The injured party received 73,518.78 EUR for medical expenses, sickness allowance and additional treatment from the then Social Insurance Institute – Auxiliary Employees’ Insurance Fund (ΙΚΑ ‑ ΕΤΑΜ), now Electronic National Social Security Entity (EFKA). On 25 February 2010 the applicant’s insurance company was placed in liquidation and was succeeded by the Auxiliary Fund. On 2 October 2012 IKA-ETAM (now EFKA) submitted a civil action claiming the amount of 73,518.78 EUR from the applicant, while on 31   October 2012 the applicant submitted an action on a guarantee against the Auxiliary Fund. Both decision no. 146/2014 of the Kastoria Court of First Instance and decision no. 10/2016 of the Western Macedonia Court of Appeals accepted the action of IKA-ETAM (now EFKA) against the applicant and partially accepted the applicant’s action on a guarantee. Subsequently, decision no. 979/2019 of the Court of Cassation upheld the decisions of the lower civil courts to accept the action of IKA-ETAM (now EFKA) against the applicant. However, decision no. 980/2019 of the Court of Cassation ruled that under article 19 paragraph 5 of law no. 489/1976 amounts of medical expenses, sickness allowance and disability pension that a social security fund, such as IKA-ETAM (now EFKA), was required to pay to the injured party were to be deducted from the corresponding claims and could not be claimed from the Auxiliary Fund. It further ruled that the Auxiliary Fund was to be released from any obligation in case the injured party had been fully compensated by a social security fund, such as IKA-ETAM (now EFKA). On these grounds, the Court of Cassation eventually rejected the applicant’s action on a guarantee. Consequently, the applicant has been obliged to pay 73,518.78   EUR to IKA-ETAM (now EFKA) plus legal interest, as well as a total of 4,000   EUR in legal costs and expenses. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his legitimate expectations have been compromised due to the fact that the Auxiliary Fund was released from any obligation, while he had been paying the corresponding insurance premiums to his insurance company. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   In the affirmative, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see for example Bernotas v.   Lithuania , no. 59065/21, §§ 93-113, 30 January 2024)?