Article 39 of Law 2084/1992 established the principle of the selection of an insurance institution for persons who are first subject to compulsory insurance from 1.1.1993 onwards. Thus, if for an insured person belonging to the above category the conditions for compulsory insurance are met to several insurance institutions who grant the same category of insurance benefits (e.g. because of status or employment or because of dual employment with different insurance institutions for each employment), that insured person shall be compulsory to a single institution. This institution itself chooses the insured person with a responsible statement, submitted to employers and insurance institutions, and the right to choose is exercised within six months of the time at which the insurance obligation is created on the second insurance institution, while in the event of no declaration being made within that period of six months, the rule applies in principle that compulsory insurance is granted to the institution responsible for employment or self-employment or status first undertaken (see point 1889/2011, 2067, 784/2010, 339/2009).
Furthermore, according to the general principle of social security law, an interruption of the social security relationship occurs from the proven change in the professional orientation or the final cessation of insured employment, if it is clearly determined by the circumstances in which they exist. However, a simple cessation of the insured employment does not constitute an indication of the intention of the insured person to leave the insurance institution, where he is not given the intention of changing his professional orientation, given that he can freely repeat his employment that had been discontinued at any time (see STD 4292/2013, 1058, 1048/2007, 941/2005, 3444/2001). Furthermore, the content of the provisions mentioned above, together with those mentioned in the explanatory statement of the law, shows that, in the same way, where a person carries out a number of tasks which do not coincide in time, and for such employment, insurance is provided for more persons, that person shall be required to be insured in a single institution, on his choice, on the basis of a statement to the relevant bodies and employers, each time he is employed more. Where the application for exemption is accepted by the institution to which it is addressed, the subsequent finding by that institution of the non-employment of the insured person to the selected institution for part of the period requested for exemption may result in the re-insurance to that institution from which the exemption has been requested for that period, but not the continuation of his insurance to him and in the future, assuming that a new application is needed for the future exemption, provided that for the other period there is insurance to which the exemption is granted. This is because the purpose of the law is to provide, on the one hand, for the continuation of the insurance coverage of the insured person in the event of a vacancy in employment, and, on the other hand, for the non-carriage of insurance to more than one institution, rather than for him to be subject to double insurance, in the event of a gap in employment found after six months of his existence. Therefore, the insured person does not need a new application for exemption in the event of an employment gap, as it does not change the will of exemption declared in the initial application for exemption (DEPHAT 5864/2015), but it is sufficient to submit a selection declaration once.
In this way, no. 692/2019 decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki (Trimeles) in a case handled by our office. An appeal was brought against that decision by the EPKA, which was rejected as inadmissible under Article 12(1) of Law 3900/2010, by No. 368/2022 decision of the Council of State, which validates No 692/2019 decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki. The decision of the Council of State has been published in the Legal Information Bank Law.