In a simple statistical record of the increases imposed by insurance companies on lifetime health plans, without initiating proceedings to impose the prescribed penalties, the Independent Authority for Market Control and Consumer Protection has moved forward, even as it emphasizes the “need for clearer documentation and greater transparency.”
This is noted on Euro2day.gr by legal experts from consumer organizations monitoring the issue, who point out that in the past (since 2011) the General Secretariat for Consumer Affairs—which was succeeded by the Independent Authority—had imposed very heavy fines on insurance companies, leading to a lengthy legal battle that ultimately upheld the government’s position, as confirmed by a decision recently published by the Council of State.
As they themselves note, the Authority states quite clearly in its announcement that the premium increases announced to policyholders by 11 companies—averaging around 8%—do not meet transparency requirements, violations of which have resulted in substantial fines being imposed on insurance companies in the past.
It should be noted that Council of State Decision 2196/2025 has definitively clarified the obligations of insurance companies, and the Authority, as pointed out by consumer organizations, should have “enforced” this decision and imposed fines. Instead, the Authority acted merely as a statistical mechanism for recording data on the increases and gave the companies another opportunity to correct their actions by providing additional information.
As stated in the Authority’s announcement,
- “in several cases, the justification for the increases does not sufficiently distinguish between hospital costs, age-related changes, the contractual adjustment terms agreed upon at the time the contract was signed, and other factors affecting the insured’s final premium.
- Furthermore, the letters informing policyholders do not follow a uniform format and do not always include, within the same document, the old premium, the new premium, the exact percentage increase, the effective date, and a clear explanation of the basis for calculation.”
The Council of State’s decision, however—which the Authority appears to be ignoring—clearly defines the companies’ obligations. It acknowledges that it is lawful for contracts to include clauses allowing for adjustments, but only on the condition that strict transparency rules are followed. The Supreme Court of Cassation rejected an appeal filed by an insurance company seeking to overturn the fines imposed by the Ministry of Commerce.
The Supreme Court of Cassation acknowledges that health insurance policies are long-term contracts and that their cost depends on unpredictable, future factors (such as inflation in the cost of health 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.
The Three Conditions Set by the Council of State
However, the court sets out three clear conditions (pursuant to 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 the contract is signed (e.g., historical data on premium trends) and throughout its term. The company is committed to providing the customer with the necessary information in a timely manner so that the customer can verify whether the increase was applied correctly and exercise their legal rights.
In other words, the legal framework (the Consumer Protection Law and its interpretation by the courts) is absolutely clear and allows the Consumer Protection Authority to impose fines on insurance companies for a lack of transparency regarding premium increases. However, the Authority, at least in its early steps in this area, is limiting itself to compiling statistics and issuing friendly advisories, according to legal experts from consumer organizations.