Correspondingly, it could also be applied to the restaurant contract, when things are safeguarded in a space inaccessible to the customer, or received by business employees for safekeeping. It is accepted that liability is based on the balance of business profit and business responsibility245. That is to say, with the delivery of objects, they enter the sphere of influence of the establishment owner, and the risk of loss compensates for the benefits gained. Direct application of the provisions cannot be raised due to the adverse character of the hotelier’s objective liability; interpretation of this concept is narrow and direct application in other cases is regulated expressly in article 839 GCC246. However, in the above cases, an analogous interpretation could be accepted and judged consistent with the legal-political purpose of provisions 834 et seq. GCC. For cases where clothing is safeguarded but the corresponding application of provisions 834 et seq. GCC cannot be considered appropriate, provisions concerning deposit could apply247. The deposit contract is usually unpaid, although consideration may be agreed248. Use of the object/item is prohibited unless permission has been given by the depositor and is limited within the framework of the given permission. In the case of damage to the thing, the depositary is liable either with the measure of care they employ in their own affairs249, or they are liable for every fault250. Under similar reasoning, the parking issue is also addressed, especially when the customer delivers their keys to an establishment employee or when the parking space is specially arranged and controlled. Application of the provisions cannot be justified if the parking is simply a space owned by the establishment used only by customers but without fencing, to the new legal framework in Greece (supra n. 21), Art. 11 [Title: Provider’s responsibility] “Upon arrival at the accommodation, the customer must hand over any valuable items or items of high value and any money they are carrying to the provider, in exchange for a receipt. In case of non-delivery, the provider is exempt from liability to compensate the customer for damage, destruction, or loss of the above items, unless the damage is due to fraud or gross negligence on the part of the provider or its agents; in all other cases, the relevant provisions of the Civil Code shall apply”. 245 Supra n. 239, 241. 246 For the innkeeper’s strict liability for the loss, destruction, or damage of items a guest brings onto the premises, which is a no-fault liability, meaning the innkeeper is responsible even without their own negligence, up to a certain limit, see above, chapter 8.7.3., supra n. 240, 242. 247 In this contract, the depositary undertakes the obligation to safeguard the movable thing of the depositor delivered to them and to deliver it when requested. See Art. 822 et seq. GCC, §§ 688 et seq. BGB. 248 Compare in hospitality contract, Andrea Schmidt, in Weber kompakt, Rechtswörterbuch, 12. Ed. 2025, Kapitel 28., Haftung aus Vertragsverletzung; Klaus Bacher, in Geigel, Haftpflichtprozess, 29. Aufl., 2024, Kap. 28, Rn. 262, 267-268. 249 In case they were unpaid according to Art. 330, 335, 336 et seq. GCC. 250 In case they were paid, according to Art. 822, 823 and 299, 380 et seq. GCC. 110 APOSTOLOS TASSIKAS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==