Consumers are preparing to fight back against the exorbitant increases in health insurance premiums, as EKPOIZO plans to file a class-action lawsuit against NN Hellas.
At the same time, the “inaction” of the Consumer Protection and Market Surveillance Authority is creating a negative impression, even though in the past the relevant departments of the Ministry of Development, which fall under its purview, had imposed heavy fines on insurance companies.
EKPOIZO’s warning “shots” in the form of a cease-and-desist letter to NN Hellas, which implemented the largest premium increases in whole life policies—by 9% – 12%, and with higher surcharges (up to 30%) for policyholders aged 70 and older, had no effect.
The subsidiary of the Dutch group announced that, on average, premium increases for whole life policies were 7.9% and attempted to justify them by citing the “significant increase in the cost of healthcare services and claims in recent years” and “changes in the demographic characteristics of the insured population.”
EKPOIZO is considering filing a class-action lawsuit against NN Hellas, which would leverage the case law favorable to policyholders regarding premium adjustments.
The legal question of concern to the consumer organization is whether the class-action lawsuit can address, in addition to prohibiting future arbitrary increases, also cover the prohibition of past unlawful conduct, so as to reverse the increases that have already been announced to policyholders.
The legal argument
The lawsuit is expected to be based on the legal arguments already presented by EKPOIZO in the out-of-court statement it sent to NN Hellas in May, demanding the immediate withdrawal of letters announcing premium adjustments:
• EKPOIZO has characterized this specific commercial practice as misleading and unfair, alleging that the company is using abusive terms.
• The consumer organization notes that NN Hellas cites the Annual Adjustment Index (A.A.I.) for long-term health insurance, citing Law 5170/2025 and the relevant Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD 74816/2025).
However, this annual index has not yet been published by the Hellenic Statistical Authority, with the first relevant index expected at the end of this year. Consequently, EKPOIZO maintains that the information provided to policyholders is completely false, as it is based on an index that practically does not yet exist.
Therefore, it characterizes the increases as opaque, unfounded, and illegal. It should be noted that NN Hellas cites a misinterpretation of the letter and emphasizes: “We have neither claimed nor relied on the EDA index to determine the adjustments, given that it has not yet been published.”
It is worth noting that the government announced unexpectedly, through the competent Deputy Minister of Development, L. Tsavdaridis, who responded to a question from Milena Apostolaki, that the ELSTAT index will be published at the end of this month.
However, under Law 5170/2025, the index cannot retroactively cover insurance premium increases for 2026. Furthermore, the law stipulates that during the transitional period until the new ELSTAT index is established, insurance premium increases may not exceed the increase in the Health sub-index of ELSTAT’s Consumer Price Index, which did not exceed 2% on average.
• EKPOIZO recalls the broader legal history regarding the adjustment of the contracts in question, emphasizing that the relevant terms have already been ruled unfair and illegal by decisions issued against the company.
Specifically, it cites the final judgments numbered 1678/2023 and 1887/2022 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal, which ruled that the contract terms were unfair and upheld fines imposed by the General Secretariat for Consumers. It also emphasizes that the matter was adjudicated by the Council of State in its recent decision 2196/2025, which confirmed the unfairness of a term with similar content.
The Council of State’s decision is a milestone
Council of State Decision 2196/2025, which has been published in summary form and is expected to be published in full, is considered a milestone in the ongoing dispute over premiums for lifetime health insurance plans, as it acknowledges that clauses in contracts allowing for adjustments are lawful, but only on the condition that strict transparency rules are followed.
The Supreme Court of Cassation rejected an insurance company’s appeal, which sought to overturn the fines imposed by the Ministry of Commerce.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that health insurance policies are long-term contracts and their costs depend on unpredictable, future factors (such as inflation in the cost of healthcare services), over which the company has no control. Consequently, the need to keep premiums “adequate” constitutes a compelling reason that justifies, in principle, the existence of a unilateral adjustment clause.
However, the court sets out three clear conditions (under Law 2251/1994 on consumer protection) for such a clause to be valid and not unfair:
- Clear Justification: The “serious reason” for the adjustment must be explicitly stated in the contract.
- Understandable Criteria: The contract must include specific and reasonable criteria. The average policyholder must be able to understand how their premium will increase and assess the future financial impact on their pocketbook.
- Ongoing Information and Transparency: Sufficient information must be provided both before signing the contract (e.g., historical data on premium trends) and throughout its duration. The company is obligated to provide the customer with the necessary data in a timely manner so that the customer can verify whether the increase was applied correctly and exercise their legal rights.
The Council of State’s decision introduces critical clarifications regarding the functioning of the insurance market, addressing common consumer complaints:
- A clause is not unfair merely because it does not set a cap on future increases or because it does not specify the exact amount from the outset. The Court accepts that this is technically impossible due to the nature of actuarial studies.
- Even if the criteria for increases are based on the company’s own techno-economic data (which is not publicly available), the clause may be valid, provided that the company undertakes a contractual obligation to make this data available to the insured party in order to justify the increase.
The Council of State also ruled that these increased transparency requirements imposed by national legislation to protect consumers do not violate EU law, specifically Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The “inaction” of the Market Surveillance Authority
While the courts may uphold the fines occasionally imposed by the relevant departments of the Ministry of Commerce—which have now been brought under the “umbrella” of the Consumer Protection and Market Surveillance Authority—the now-independent Authority has not yet proceeded to inspect insurance companies in response to complaints about excessive and arbitrary increases in premiums for lifetime health insurance plans.
Euroday.gr contacted the office of the Authority’s director, Despoina Tsangari, requesting comment on reports of the lack of inspections, as well as information regarding a meeting with representatives of insurance companies in recent days. The Director’s office declined to comment on these matters.
It should be noted that the Authority employs experienced, competent staff from the former Ministry of Commerce who are very familiar with insurance company matters and have imposed heavy fines over the past 15 years for abuses regarding insurance premiums. It appears, however, that monitoring insurance companies is not currently a priority for the Authority, as greater emphasis is being placed on issues of price accuracy for basic consumer goods.