When a Greek appellate court apportions concurrent fault in a fatal road accident, its written reasoning must record three specific factual conclusions: the position of each vehicle and the distance between them at the moment of the critical maneuver, whether each driver used a direction-indicator signal, and the approximate speed of each vehicle. Miss any one of them, and the apportionment cannot survive cassation under Article 559(19) KPoLD. Areios Pagos 13/2026, decided by the 4th Civil Division under Vice-President Αλεξάνδρα Αποστολάκη on 21 November 2025 and published 9 January 2026, quashed Athens Court of Appeal decision 5306/2019 because all three markers were absent, making it impossible to verify whether Article 914 AK had been applied correctly.
The Accident and the Parties
On 5 August 2014, at approximately 11:05, E.B.G., a foreign national, was driving a BMW car owned by "BMW Ελλάς Εμπορία Αυτοκινήτων Α.Ε." (BMW Hellas) on the provincial road between Skopelos and Loutraki, heading towards Loutraki. At the 40-kilometre mark, near the Ariadni Hotel in Stafilos, Skopelos, where the speed limit was 30 km/h, he slowed and began a left turn, crossing the opposing lane diagonally to enter the hotel's parking area.
At the same moment, A.V. was riding a motorcycle in the same lane, in the same direction, behind the BMW. As the car began its turn, A.V. attempted to overtake on the left. His motorcycle struck the BMW's two left-side doors and front-left fender. A.V. was thrown, slid along the road surface, and struck the hotel's retaining wall head-first, sustaining fatal cranio-cerebral injuries and a cervical fracture.
A.V. was the son of the 1st plaintiff (his mother), sibling of the 2nd through 8th plaintiffs, grandson of the 9th plaintiff, and the fiancé of the 10th plaintiff. The family filed their action on 12 January 2015. Three defendants were named:
→ BMW Hellas, as registered owner of the vehicle → Executive Lease S.A. (now succeeded by "...Α.Ε.Β.Ε."), which had leased the car from BMW Hellas for commercial exploitation and sub-let it to E.B.G. → "ALLIANZ ΕΛΛΑΣ Α.Α.Ε." (now Allianz Evropaiki Pistis), which Executive Lease had engaged to insure the car for third-party civil liability
The family claimed bereavement damages, dependency maintenance, and funeral expenses, sought jointly and severally against all three defendants.
E.B.G. was convicted of negligent homicide (ανθρωποκτονία εξ αμελείας) by the Volos Three-Member Misdemeanor Court in decision 203/17, receiving a 10-month custodial sentence.
What the Court of Appeal Held
The Athens Single-Judge Court of First Instance (Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών), in decision 390/2017, rejected the family's claim entirely. It found A.V. solely at fault.
The family appealed. The Athens Court of Appeal (Μονομελές Εφετείο Αθηνών), in decision 5306/2019, reversed. It found concurrent negligence and apportioned fault: 70% to E.B.G. (car driver) and 30% to A.V. (motorcyclist).
On the car driver's side, the court found that E.B.G. had crossed a continuous median line, which is prohibited, failed to adequately check the traffic behind him before turning, and did not verify that the maneuver could be executed safely. On the motorcyclist's side, the court found that A.V. had been traveling at excessive speed above the 30 km/h limit, failed to notice the car beginning to turn left in time, and could not perform an evasive maneuver or brake in time.
The Court of Appeal cited Articles 8, 12(1), 19, and 21(1) ΚΟΚ (Law 2696/1999) as the relevant highway code provisions for the car driver, and Articles 12(1), 19(1), 19(2), and 20 ΚΟΚ for the motorcyclist.
Why the Areios Pagos Quashed It
Two sets of defendants filed cassation petitions: Allianz and Executive Lease's successor (16 April 2020, ref. 2611/273/2020) and BMW Hellas (20 May 2020, ref. 2737/293/2020). The Areios Pagos consolidated both for joint hearing.
The accepted ground was Article 559(19) KPoLD: the Court of Appeal's judgment lacked legal basis because its concurrent-fault reasoning was unclear, insufficient, and contradictory ("ασαφείς, ανεπαρκείς και αντιφατικές αιτιολογίες"). The deficiency made it impossible to review whether the findings had been correctly subsumed under Article 914 AK, the Civil Code's foundational tort provision, read with the applicable highway code articles.
The Areios Pagos identified three specific gaps in the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
A. Vehicle position and inter-vehicle distance. The Court of Appeal made no finding on the distance between the motorcycle and the BMW at the moment the car began its left turn, and did not record whether the car driver had noticed or should have noticed A.V. approaching from behind. Without that finding, it was impossible to assess whether the car driver's maneuver blocked A.V.'s path when A.V. was already committed to the overtaking line, or whether a timely check could have averted the collision.
B. Direction-indicator signals. The court said nothing about whether E.B.G. activated his left-direction indicator before beginning the turn, or whether A.V. used a signal to announce the overtaking maneuver. Article 21(1) ΚΟΚ requires a driver intending to change direction to give timely advance notice using the direction-indicator. Fault attribution that ignores whether that obligation was met or breached is incomplete as a matter of law.
C. Approximate speed of each vehicle. The court concluded that A.V. was traveling at excessive speed but recorded no figure, even an approximate one. It also gave no finding on the BMW's speed at the critical moment. Fault apportionment that invokes speed as a factor without quantifying it leaves a gap the Areios Pagos cannot fill on review.
With all three points unresolved, the Areios Pagos held that cassation review of the fault attribution was impossible. The first ground of both petitions under Article 559(19) was accepted, and the remaining grounds became moot given the total scope of the quashing.
The Liability Chain in Leased Vehicles
The case is a useful reference point for multi-party fleet liability. BMW Hellas owned the car and leased it to Executive Lease for commercial exploitation; Executive Lease sub-let it to E.B.G. and insured it for third-party liability with Allianz. Each entity occupied a distinct role:
→ BMW Hellas bore liability as the registered owner of the vehicle → Executive Lease bore liability as the operator with commercial control → Allianz bore liability as the compulsory third-party insurer
Greek law exposes owner, operator, and insurer to concurrent joint and several liability toward third-party victims. The family correctly directed their claims against all three, and the cassation was brought by the defendant side.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
For claimants:
→ An appellate win that apportions fault without those three findings is structurally vulnerable. A well-constructed Article 559(19) petition can undo a favorable percentage split even where liability itself is not contested. → Building an explicit trial record on all three points, and pressing the appellate court to address each in its written judgment, is now a precautionary necessity.
For insurers, vehicle owners, and operators:
→ Where an appellate judgment is silent on any of those three factual markers, Article 559(19) offers a cassation ground that targets the reasoning, not the factual conclusions, which are insulated from cassation review. → Petitions should identify with precision which marker is absent rather than attacking the percentage split in general terms.
The remand is a full rehearing. The Athens Court of Appeal, constituted before a different judge, is not bound by the 70/30 split; it may reproduce, revise, or set aside the apportionment entirely once the three gaps are filled with explicit factual findings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Article 559(19) KPoLD and when does it apply in traffic cases?
Article 559(19) KPoLD permits cassation where a judgment's reasoning is absent, insufficient, or contradictory on a material point. In concurrent-fault accident cases, it applies when the appellate court omits factual findings needed to sustain the fault attribution under Article 914 AK and the applicable highway code provisions.
Does a criminal conviction for negligent homicide bind the civil court on fault?
Not automatically. The Volos Three-Member Misdemeanor Court's conviction of E.B.G. for negligent homicide (decision 203/17) was part of the trial record, but Greek civil courts assess fault independently. The conviction did not prevent the cassation court from finding the civil reasoning deficient.
What happens procedurally after the Areios Pagos quashes a Court of Appeal decision?
Under Article 580(3) KPoLD, the case is remanded to the same court of appeal to be heard by a different judge. The appeal is reheard in full, not limited to the deficient points.
Who bore the litigation costs of the cassation proceedings?
The family respondents in the 16 April 2020 petition were ordered to pay €3,000 to Allianz and Executive Lease's successor. The 7th respondent was ordered to pay €3,000 to BMW Hellas in the 20 May 2020 petition. The other respondents were excluded from that cost order because the cassation proceedings against them were declared inadmissible due to improper service.
Primary sources, not summaries. Search Greek caselaw and trace the provisions that govern your next traffic tort matter at omnilaw.ai
