untitled design

Judicial wall in vandalism: Compensation – mammoths to business owners

By Panagiotis Stathis

In a judicial defeat of the doctrine of the “defensive attitude of the police” expressed in 2008 by the then Minister of Interior of the Karamanlis government, Prokopi Pavlopoulos, the Council of State proceeds with nine decisions, defining the role of the police and its obligation to protect ( and) property from vandalism.

This is the judicial justification of businessmen who saw their companies destroyed around the Polytechnic in 2008, in the episodes that followed the murder of a child by a police officer, Al. Grigoropoulos by Epameinondas Korkoneas.

The Supreme Court of the country (First Division of the Court of Appeals) with nine decisions acquitted companies that suffered damage in the incidents that occurred after the murder of the minor student, in which a total of 1,868,000 euros in damages were owed, to which the State owes to pay, interest.

The plaintiff businessmen argued that the damages suffered were due to omissions of the Police to take the appropriate measures (preventive and repressive) imposed by the circumstances. In the first instance, they were acquitted, but the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision on the grounds that EL.AS. it is impossible in such a sudden and generalized violent situation to act to guard all the operations and that the applicant companies have not made any specific omissions by the Police. However, the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the appeals rulings as illegal and acquitted the companies.

“The protection of citizens’ property … is an obligation of the police”

The court with its nine decisions (1964 to 1972/2021) with the vice-president Spyridoula (Sissi) Chrysikopoulou as president and the vice-president Hariklia Charalambidis as rapporteur, clearly states that regardless of the circumstances, the Police is obliged to protect the property of the duration of mass mobilizations of citizens, especially when she is aware of these mobilizations and, in the past, in similar mobilizations had again manifested deviations and a similar development was expected: “The protection of citizens’ property from violent incidents that occur in the context of any form of mass mobilization of citizens is the responsibility of the police, the fulfillment of which is not at their discretion, therefore, if the police completely fail to intervene to protect the property of the she is pa lawful and therefore the civil liability of the State required for the foundation is met “.

– “the police have only discretion as to how they will act, ie as to the choice of the kind of measures they must take to fulfill their obligation, which may – at their discretion – select and implement the most appropriate In the specific case in which the police, although intervening and operating, do not take any specific measures to protect the property of the citizen, the choice to abstain from any action, especially for the purpose of the good of the property, constitutes exceeding the limits of their discretion and is therefore illegal “.

Responsibility

It is known that according to article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code, the case of force majeure is an excuse from the responsibility of the State for compensation, but in this case “do not constitute a case of force majeure, violent incidents of great intensity and extent that escalate and spread gradually and take place in many places at the same time resulting in the disintegration of the police force and consequently the reduction of their effectiveness, if these episodes could be foreseen according to the lessons of common experience and brought under control in time, ie before they spread and become uncontrollable by taking immediate, necessary and appropriate measures “.

The judges refer to the data that constitute the predictability of violent incidents of great intensity and extent with damaging consequences. Violent incidents, according to the lessons of common experience and especially based on the prevailing social conditions, “are normal or at least not unusual” at a time when there is information or serious indications of “mass mobilization of angry or outraged citizens or social groups “.

According to the lessons of common experience, “the news of the death of a minor (s.s .: Alexandros Grigoropoulos) in the Exarcheia area by a police officer shot is very likely as expected to provoke a strong social reaction, lead to immediate mass mobilization of citizens in urban areas consequently trigger a social outburst at any time …. they are more than likely a case of force majeure, violent incidents and vandalism taking place as part of a planned protest march when the same incident that sparked the protest has already taken place violent and extremely violent , as well as extensive damage and destruction either in the same area or in another, if at any time such a development is highly probable and therefore it is possible to anticipate and prevent it by immediate action and taking all appropriate measures, taking into account the authority of police bodies to impose restrictions on di export gatherings or gatherings or to refine gatherings and gatherings which are unlawful because they are diverted to acts of violence against persons “.

Source From: Capital

You may also like

Get the latest

Stay Informed: Get the Latest Updates and Insights

 

Most popular