Fourteen years have passed since the tragic events of May 5, 2010, when unidentified individuals set fire to a neoclassical building on Stadiou Street 23, near Klafthmonos Square, during a protest march. At the time, the building was leased by Marfin Bank. Now, the Supreme Court has attributed responsibility to the bank for failing to implement fire safety and security measures.

On that dark day, three Marfin employees lost their lives, including a pregnant bank worker.

The Supreme Court’s Fourth Civil Division overturned the 2020 decision of the Athens Single-Member Court of Appeals, acknowledging that the then-tenant, Marfin Bank, and its Board of Directors bore responsibility for not taking adequate safety measures to prevent the destruction of the premises.

Additionally, the Supreme Court deemed the 2020 Court of Appeals decision contradictory and inadequately reasoned, sending the case back to a different judge at the Athens Single-Member Court of Appeals for a new ruling.

In its ruling (No. 1532/2024), the Supreme Court noted:
“The Court of Appeals deprived the contested decision of a legal basis by including insufficient, vague, and contradictory reasoning regarding the key issue of tort liability of the first respondent tenant bank and its Board members. These omissions make appellate review impossible concerning the substantive legal provisions of Articles 914, 330, 300, 297, and 298 of the Civil Code, which were incorrectly applied or violated indirectly.”

The Supreme Court highlighted several points of contention with the 2020 decision:

1. It concluded that the tenant was not responsible for the complete destruction of the leased property without addressing whether essential safety measures were taken or followed.
2. It provided insufficient reasoning regarding the alleged failures of the tenant bank and its Board members, such as:
   • The absence of reinforced, vandal-resistant glass or security shutters on the ground floor windows.
   • The lack of a second emergency exit to a shared space.
   • The failure to install a water-based fire suppression system or a flexible hose connected to a permanent water supply.
   • The absence of a fire safety study.
   • The failure to close the branch either at the start of working hours on the protest day (May 5, 2010) or before the march began.
3. It contained contradictory reasoning about the automatic termination of the lease on May 5, 2010, despite earlier accepting that the lease had been extended until June 30, 2012.
4. It inadequately justified the conclusion that the tenant bank had no obligation to repair the damage to the property or compensate for the loss of its commercial value.