Updated: Dec 2, 2018
With the provisions of article 39 of Law 2084/1992, the principle of choosing an insurance agency (abolition of parallel insurance) was established for persons who are covered for the first time by the compulsory insurance of any agency (from 1-1-1993), in order to ensure the viability of the social security system in our country (see explanatory statement in article 39 of the law). Later and with the provisions of paragraph 1 of articles 17 and 36 of Law 4387/2016 (effective from 1.1.2017) the above provisions were repealed and parallel insurance was regulated under the terms of the above law, in order to ensure the viability of the social security system in our country. In the meantime, however, more insured persons were forced due to the complexity of the relevant provisions and the difficulty in their implementation by the administration to pay double insurance contributions for the same period despite the abolition of parallel insurance introduced by Law 2084/1992, bearing additional fees and surcharges.
Recognizing this absurd and unfair practice, the legislator attempts, in part, to remove the adverse financial consequences for these insured persons.
Specifically, in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of Law 4554/2018 (Government Gazette A' 130/18.07.2018) entitled "Reasonable doubt as to belonging to two or more bodies until 31.12.2016" 1. Certified or uncertified debts
to former social security agencies or the State, which were created due to reasonable doubt as to the obligation to be included or not in the parallel insurance of two (2) or more former insurance agencies or the State for the period up to 31.12.2016, may be deleted or exempted from any imposed additional fees, interest, surcharges and charges, in accordance with the procedure described in this article. Any sums paid by the insured against the above debts are not returned and are not sought. 2. Reasonable doubt may be demonstrated indicatively by the following criteria:
a) existence of a court decision in favor of the insured debtor,
b) existence of opposing court decisions on the same difficult-to-interpret legal issue,
c) previous long-term practice of the administration, as a result of which the liable persons had the belief that they were not included in the insurance,
d) existence of different directives on the same subject from the administration, and e) full insurance from salaried or self-employed employment during the same period of time, for which contributions have been calculated from an salaried or self-employed insurance institution. 3. For the resolution of the above insurance disputes, a decision of the Minister of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity is issued, for each examined category of insured persons, following a relevant opinion of the Social Security Council, which determines the terms and conditions of exemption from the compulsory insurance of the above examined insurance cases and any other related necessary issue. For the inclusion of the insured in the above ministerial decision to resolve insurance disputes, a relevant request is submitted by the interested parties to the competent Services of the EFKA, the ETEAEP and the other social security bodies. After the examination of the request by the competent services of the social security institutions, a relevant decision is issued. The provisions of this article are applied to cases of insured persons whose cases are at any stage of the administrative procedure, even if they have been decided by the competent bodies in the first or second instance."
Regarding and based on the above legislative authorization, the Deputy Minister of Social Security signed the first three decisions, which activate the debt write-off process and the exemption of insured persons from imposed additional fees, interest, etc. due to reasonable doubt about their inclusion in the parallel insurance of two or more former entities due to the multiplicity, complexity and constant amendments of the relevant legislative framework in the past.