In an unprecedented decision, in a civil law case, the Court found the pedestrian who stepped over a car obstructing a sidewalk not guilty, ruling that the obstruction of the sidewalk constituted a violation to the pedestrian’s dignity. The court awarded 600 euros in damages per person to the couple whose free passage was hindered by the car parked on the sidewalk.
On the other hand, the court ruled the pedestrian responsible for the damages caused to the car by his actions, and ordered him to pay the cost of the repairs. The Athens Court of Peace issued two rulings in the well-known case of the pedestrian who stepped over a Jeep parked on a sidewalk obstructing his free passage.
This prominent case, which was featured in the media, has been of special interest because the owner of the car, even though he had parked illegally, thus interfering with the free passage of pedestrians, decided to file a lawsuit against the pedestrian who stepped over the car as well as the pedestrian’s girlfriend. They in turn filed a countersuit.
The Court ruled as follows:
According to ruling 966/2009, the owner of the Jeep is ordered by the Court to pay damages in the amount of 600 Euros to each of the two pedestrians, as well as 80 Euros to cover the legal fees.
According to ruling 966/2009, the pedestrian who stepped over the car is ordered to compensate the owner of the car for the needed repairs amounting to 745 Euros, as well as pay 100 Euros to cover legal fees. The suit against the pedestrian’s girlfriend was dropped: furthermore, the owner of the car was ordered to pay an additional 100 Euros to cover her legal expenses.
The second Court ruling rejected the pedestrian’s objection and denied his claim that he was exercising his legal right to continue his walking in a straight line, even if that meant to walk over the car: in other words, the Court did not condone his action but recognized his frustration.
It should be noted that both rulings are final and cannot be contested by appeal —since the dispute was settled according to the minor cases procedure— and cannot be reversed at a higher Court.
The Court decision 966/2009 is extremely important since it recognizes the claim to damages for violation of a person’s dignity ensuing from the obstruction of free passage on a sidewalk caused by an illegally parked car.
In addition to the parking ticket issued for the parking violation by the police—which in this case did not address the matter and whose officer was biased in favor of the car owner as noted by the Citizen’s Advocate— a pedestrian has a civil course of action, namely to seek legal recourse for the violation of his dignity.
At the same time, the Court’s decision 967/2009 sets limits to this right by not recognizing impunity in the case of damages to the illegally parked car resulting from the pedestrian’s behavior—without specifically justifying this opinion.
