The responsibility of the Fire Department for incorrectly assessing the danger of the deadly fire in East Attica on July 23, 2018 and not recommending a preventive evacuation of residents, as it should have been, was blamed by the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, awarding for the first time mental suffering compensation against the Greek state to the relatives of the victim. The lawsuit against the state, the region of Attica and the municipality of Rafina Pikermio was filed by five relatives of a 77-year-old woman who died in Neo Wutz. The deceased tried to run away from the house as soon as she noticed the fire so that her husband could pick her up in a car. However, he failed to escape and escape. She was only 40 meters away from her home when the fire overtook her and she died of thermal burns. The three-member 29th Bench of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, in a decision published last Thursday, ruled that the State must pay the five plaintiffs a total of 300,000 euros. This is the first time an administrative court has awarded compensation for what happened four years ago in a fatal fire. At the same time, the criminal process continues with the testimonies of the relatives of the victims, victims of the fire and eyewitnesses.

“This is the first rehabilitation for the relatives of the people who died in this tragic fire, while the criminal court is in full swing,” said lawyer Dimitrios Skiftas, who, along with his colleague Konstantinos Fussa, represented the relatives of the victims in this trial. .

“current fault”

The state, in an attempt to resist legal action, argued in its summary that evacuation was not an appropriate or applicable measure in this particular fire and that a possible attempted mass evacuation of the population “would be ineffective and dangerous, causing panic.” However, the court ruled that the fire department’s refusal to recommend an evacuation was unlawful.

The court ruled that ignoring the fire department’s recommendation to evacuate was unlawful.

The state also said that if the deceased had not voluntarily left her home, which was ultimately left unscathed by the fire, she herself would have been safe. He also claimed that in this particular case, there is 95% joint guilt of the victim, that is, he is responsible for what happened. However, the court rejected this claim, noting that the victim’s actions and decision to leave the house at the approach of the fire was to be expected, “especially since she did not have sufficient information about the degree of danger to which she was exposed.”

Among other things, the state, in an attempt to refute the claim, referred to “force majeure”, detailing the prevailing weather conditions and listing other large wildfires that the fire department was called to extinguish on the same day. However, the court ruled that in this particular case it was not the failure of the fire department to put out the fire, but that it had failed to evacuate people.

As stated in the reasons for the decision, “extreme care and careful measures to protect residents” were not taken by the competent fire authorities. Although the court puts the fire department in the main framework of responsibility for the issue of evacuation, the decision indicates that there is no “control area for further actions to evict residents” from the civil defense, region and municipal authorities. .

The Administrative Court of First Instance in this particular case did not consider other issues that arose on the day in question. It is significant that he did not check whether the traffic police is responsible for the seizure of vehicles or other services, since they are not the subject of this case. The court was asked to judge what happened in one case, which concerned the circumstances of the death of a 77-year-old man. At the same time, other relevant decisions are expected to be issued on class and individual claims, in which there are statements by fire victims and relatives of fire victims in Mati.