Through Politis, Ms Attalides calls on parliamentary parties to support her legislative initiative.
A legislative initiative with a clear social focus, aimed at addressing inequalities faced by senior citizens in the field of motor vehicle insurance, is being put to a vote today before the House plenary. The proposed law seeks in particular to limit the increased insurance premiums that drivers face once they reach the age of 70, with the aim of ensuring fairer and more proportionate treatment.
The outcome of the vote is expected with particular interest, as the initiative directly touches on issues of social justice, equal access to services and the protection of the rights of elderly drivers. According to indications so far, the bill appears likely to secure the majority required to be adopted into law.
The bill was submitted by Volt MP Alexandra Attalides and was examined as a priority by the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Equal Opportunities for Men and Women.
The provisions
The proposal explicitly prohibits the arbitrary and unjustified refusal by insurance companies to enter into an insurance contract with any individual. The regulation aims to strengthen transparency, equality before the law and equal treatment in the field of motor vehicle insurance.
Furthermore, insurance companies will be required to provide a specific, adequate and clear justification in cases where they refuse to enter into an insurance contract and to communicate that justification in writing to the person concerned. In this way, a framework of accountability is established, strengthening consumer protection and ensuring the possibility of reviewing the legality of such decisions.
In addition, the proposed regulations seek to strengthen the protection of citizens, prevent discriminatory practices, ensure equal and uninterrupted access to insurance and reinforce the accountability of insurance companies. At the same time, administrative fines are foreseen for insurance companies that fail to comply with the proposed legislation, enhancing the deterrent nature of the regulatory framework and ensuring its effective implementation.
Why it must be adopted
As Alexandra Attalides told Politis, the proposed measures are considered necessary following complaints from elderly individuals regarding unjustified premium increases imposed without documentation, without individual assessment and without transparency regarding the criteria applied by insurance companies. According to Ms Attalides, this practice constitutes a form of age discrimination.
She also cited data indicating that, based on recorded statistics, drivers over the age of 70 show a low rate of involvement in road accidents and a limited number of compensation claims. Nevertheless, she said, they continue to face exclusion without adequate justification, without transparency and without any meaningful possibility of challenging decisions affecting them.
The Volt MP also referred to a report by the Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights dated 16 April 2025, which records the refusal of insurance companies to provide insurance coverage to individuals over the age of 70. According to Ms Attalides, this confirms the need for institutional intervention to prevent exclusionary practices based on age.
In particular, the Commissioner’s report highlights the need to establish a binding regulatory framework for financial institutions and insurance companies to ensure the provision of individualised and sufficiently reasoned responses to those concerned. It also emphasises the importance of strengthening transparency by providing clear, understandable and easily accessible information regarding the criteria and procedures applied. The report also recommends the examination and adoption of additional measures for the institutional protection of elderly people, following practices applied in other countries.
“I call on parties to vote for it”
In concluding her remarks to Politis, Alexandra Attalides called on parliamentary parties to approve the bill during today’s plenary session of the House.
Specifically, she stated: “The people who are currently being penalised because of their age are the generation that supported the social and economic structure of this country. We cannot require them to undergo medical examinations in order to drive and at the same time leave them without any guarantee of access to compulsory insurance. I call on all political parties to assume the responsibility that corresponds to them and vote in favour of the bill.”
The Financial Ombudsman
During the discussion of the bill before the competent parliamentary committee, Financial Ombudsman Valentina Georgiadou agreed with most of its provisions but expressed opposition regarding the provision requiring her office to issue a decision within 30 days from the submission of a complaint.
As she noted, this provision may conflict with the provisions of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Single Body for the Out-of-Court Settlement of Financial Disputes. She also expressed concern regarding the provision in subsection (1) of Article 3G requiring insurance companies to maintain internal procedures for examining complaints submitted by insured persons.
Three-month notice
During the discussion before the Parliamentary Committee, MPs also examined the deadline for providing justification by the insurer in cases where there is an intention to terminate an insurance contract. Under the proposal, the insurer must provide written justification at least one month before the expiration of the contract.
Members of the Human Rights Committee considered it appropriate for this period to be extended to three months, as this would facilitate the functioning of the out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism and align with the provisions of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Single Body for the Out-of-Court Settlement of Financial Disputes. At the same time, it would provide sufficient time for the insured person to effectively exercise the rights provided by the proposed law and to seek alternative insurance coverage if necessary.