Greece

Previous reports: 2024 | 2023/24

List of corrections:

• 5 July 2026: Total of rejected administrative appeals corrected from 1 to 0

Principal EBCO concerns

• Alternative service is punitive and discriminatory, inter alia, in terms of longer duration, discriminatory geographical restrictions, compensation being below the poverty threshold, and remains under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence.

• Conscientious objectors are subjected to inquiry and are discriminated against when applying on ideological grounds. The process has yet to be placed under the full control of civilian authorities.

• Punishment of certain categories of conscientious objectors continues, in violation of international law. Such punishment may also be repeated in violation of ne bis in idem.

• Non-compliance to the UN Human Rights Committee decision on Petromelidis v. Greece.

As reported by Georgios Karatzas:

Developments

Regressions in legislation

Following some public consultation which was largely ignored,² and discussions in the Parliament since December 2025,³ on 10 January 2026, Law 5265/2026 was enacted which replaces a wide range of military legislation. Most of the provisions about conscientious objectors remain unchanged, (which means no progress and compliance with the Human Rights Committee recommendations⁴), but there is also some deterioration.⁵

Increase in buy out amount while discrimination against COs remains

The amount of money required to buy out the rest of military or alternative service obligations (after serving a minimum of 20 days) for those above 40 years of age (previously set to 33 years) was increased significantly from 810 to 1500 euros per month of service. This is discriminatory for people of lower income, but it also deepens further the discrimination against conscientious objectors, which had been previously highlighted, inter alia, by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.⁶ As conscientious objectors are required to buy out months of alternative service which is usually 3 months longer, they were previously required to pay (up to) 3 x 810 = 2,430 euros more than conscripts buying out military service. According to the new law, from 2031, they will be required to pay (up to) 3 x 1500 = 4,500 euros more than conscripts⁷, for buying out the same obligation.

Limitation on administrative appeal deferments for CO applications

The provision stipulating that in case of administrative appeal of an applicant against the rejection of their application for CO status, a deferment is necessarily granted (until the decision on the administrative appeal is issued), was amended and such deferment now can only be granted once.⁸

Mandatory disclosure of CO status in certificates of military status

Concerning the certificate of military status, despite a previous decision of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority⁹ [see “Protection from discrimination and personal data” in War Resisters International’s previous submission¹⁰], which was even highlighted by the Greek Ombudsman¹¹ and the Scientific Service of the Greek Parliament,¹² the new law provides that the certificate will indicate that someone has served alternative service,¹³ i.e., that they are a conscientious objector, thus rendering them vulnerable to discrimination, especially in terms of employment.

Removal of protections from (repeated) prosecutions of COs

A previous provision¹⁴ stipulating that those convicted for refusing military service after serving a prison term equal to, or greater than, the duration of alternative service are exempted from further call-ups for military service was abolished.¹⁵ This is a reform completely opposite to the recommendations to stop repeated prosecutions and punishment of conscientious objectors in violation of the ne bis in idem principle, that went ahead despite the intervention of the Greek National Commission for Human Rights.¹⁶

Another provision for cessation of prosecutions, expungement of criminal records and lifting legal repercussions for those declared insubordinate who subsequently transition to an exemption status (e.g. due to disability, as fathers of three or more children) was similarly abolished.¹⁷

In general, the new stricter provisions, inter alia, for those declared insubordinate, those residing abroad, medical exemptions on psychiatric grounds etc., could indirectly affect many conscientious objectors to military service.

Prohibition of second application incorporated in the legislation

A provision which essentially prohibits a second (or further) similar application for conscientious objector status has been incorporated in the new legislation. The provision stipulates that an application for recognition as conscientious objector similar to a previous one which has been already rejected on the merits, is not accepted.¹⁸ It is equivalent to a provision which was previously included in a decision of the Minister of National Defence arranging the details about alternative civilian service.¹⁹ Such provision meant in practice that second applications were being rejected by the recruiting authorities themselves without even being forwarded to the (anyway problematic) Special Committee, which is competent to examine applications and recommend to the Minister of National Defence about granting or not CO status.

In previous years, the Council of State, Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court, has ruled in favour of individuals whose second applications have been rejected without being examined on the merits, (i.e., without being examined by the Special Committee and the Minister of National Defence), on the basis that the (previous) legislation was not authorising the Minister of National Defence to issue such a provision rejecting (a priori) second applications.²⁰ Therefore, the fact that the relevant provision is now incorporated in the main legislation, voted in the Parliament, possibly reflects an attempt to circumvent the decisions of the Council of State, and “legitimise” the rejection of second applications by the recruiting authorities. This possibly constitutes a serious negative development insofar military authorities could be considered to be now “lawfully” authorised to reject second applications. The least that someone would expect would be for the second applications to be examined by the body competent to examine applications (even if this, for the time being, is problematic in Greece) in order to examine whether new elements are included which could render a second application different, and therefore admissible and perhaps worthy to be accepted.

Other changes

Registration for those liable for military service is, in essence, moved to 17 years of age (previously 18), i.e. minors will be registered.²¹

Voluntary military service for women is introduced,²² but without possibility for conscientious objection.

Reserve duties, previously until 45 years of age, are now extended to 60 years of age.²³

Α previously criticised provision that punished those performing alternative service with additional service time whenever they engaged in “union activities” was abolished. Participation in strikes still results in extended service time.²⁴

Trial and sentencing of a total objector by military court

According to information from his lawyer, a total objector, V. M., was summoned to trial by the Military Court of Athens, in June 2025. In this case, the total objector was charged twice for insubordination, corresponding to two periods of insubordination later merged in one trial, related to his same and constant refusal to perform both the military and the (punitive) alternative civilian service.

This case illustrates several violations of human rights of conscientious objectors, including: violation of the right to conscientious objection to military service, for refusing to perform a punitive alternative civilian service; trials of conscientious objectors, including total objectors, by Greek military courts, in violation of the right to fair trial; repeated trials and punishment for the same “offence” in violation of the ne bis in idem principle; (and even arrests of conscientious objectors, including total objectors, in violation of the right to liberty, as it had previously happened in this case too).

The trial was postponed and finally took place in January 2026 when the total objector was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 16 months of imprisonment in total (combined, for both periods of insubordination).

Arrests of civilians for insubordination

According to official police reports,²⁵ in 2025, police continued to arrest civilians for insubordination, i.e. for draft evasion. It appears that most such arrests were random, in the context of broader police operations. In one case, a person was arrested while entering the country.²⁶ It is worth noting though that an arrest for insubordination has been reported also by the Hellenic Coast Guard. A 32-year-old Greek citizen was arrested in the port of Patras during checks before the departure of a passengers ship to Italy, when it was discovered that the administrative measure of prohibition from leaving the country had been imposed to him.²⁷

News report about imprisonment for insubordination in time of peace

In February 2025, the news website of a local journalist in the city of Larissa published a report about the sentencing of a 34-year-old resident of the prefecture of Larissa to a prison sentence of 18 months for insubordination in time of peace, which was not a suspended one, and without even the appeal having a suspending effect, resulting in his arrest and transfer to the prison of Larissa. The article noted that the judgement was heavily discussed even among policemen and that people working on such issues considered it very harsh, creating a new situation.²⁸ The exact circumstances of the case are not known to EBCO.

Conscientious objector unable to continue the punitive alternative service lodges petition to the Supreme Administrative Court

In a case which began in 2025 and continues in 2026, Zacharias Piazas an officially recognised conscientious objector to military service initiated the (punitive and discriminatory) alternative civilian service in an institution for chronic medical conditions in Thessaloniki, away from the region of his permanent residence, but soon found himself forced to temporarily depart because of the harsh financial conditions. The institution informed the military authorities which summoned the conscientious objector to provide explanation for his absence – a standard procedure before the revocation of conscientious objector status. In his written replies, the conscientious objector explained how the institution did not provide him housing and minimum resources for covering his basic living needs, which meant that he had to find housing by himself, which proved to be impossible. As EBCO has repeatedly pointed out, conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service in Greece are either provided with food and housing inside the institutions in which they are appointed to, without receiving any money whatsoever, or they are entitled to receive an amount of money (223.53 euros per month, unchanged since 2005) which is well below the threshold of poverty, and with which they have to cover all their needs and expenses, including housing. This situation has become even more unbearable in the midst of a housing and cost of living crisis in recent years.

It is worth noting also that the conscientious objector has been recently unemployed and that the relevant state agency (Public Employment Service – DYPA) informed him that since the date of initiation of alternative civilian service he is considered unable to search for employment, and therefore he lost the status of unemployed person and was removed from the Record of Unemployed Persons.

In his written replies to the military authorities, the conscientious objector explained that his temporary departure is not a refusal to perform the alternative civilian service, neither a disciplinary disobedience, but rather a matter of factual inability. He also claimed that failing to ensure minimum conditions of living for conscientious objectors during alternative service, contrary to the provisions for conscripts performing military service, constitutes discrimination on grounds of belief. Furthermore, he challenged the competence of the military authorities to summon him, arguing that conscientious objectors should not fall under the jurisdiction of the military, and it’s rather the institution an objector is appointed to which is responsible for any disciplinary offences.

A complaint (petition for annulment) to the Council of State (Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court) is pending by the time this report is published. In this complaint, the conscientious objector describes the punitive and discriminatory conditions of alternative civilian service in Greece and claims, inter alia, violations of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom from discrimination.

It is worth noting that both in the written replies to the military authorities, as well as in the complaint to the Council of State, the conscientious objector makes reference to EBCO’s pending complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights,²⁹ and its argumentation.

Problematic decision of the ECtHR in a case of a conscientious objector on religious grounds

In November 2025, the third section of the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision on the case of Tsiliggros v. Greece,³⁰ declaring the application inadmissible. The case concerns a monk of the religious community of the True Orthodox Christians – Old Calendarists of Lamia, who can be considered as a conscientious objector on religious grounds, insofar he claimed, inter alia, that “military service would have prevented him […] from following the sacred laws and traditions of his community and his vows as a monk, which required him to refrain from joining the military and carrying a weapon” (para. 13). He didn't apply for alternative civilian service, but rather for an exemption as a monk, (equivalently to monks belonging to Mount Athos), but his request was rejected by the Conscription Service of Western Greece on the grounds that, under domestic law, only monks belonging to Mount Athos were exempt from military service. He initially faced criminal charges and a fine for desertion, but later (after he had lodged the complaint to the ECtHR) the fine was annulled, the criminal charges against him were dropped and he was finally exempted for medical reasons.

It appears that the Court rejected the complaint mainly because of the special legal status of Mount Athos (para. 26). It is particularly concerning that the Court avoided to examine on the merits an important argument of the applicant, (i.e. that a legislative amendment which extended the exemption from military service to monks and novitiates belonging to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem revealed that the instituted exemptions had not been justified on the basis of the special legal status of Mount Athos but rather constituted special privileges to certain religious communities) (para. 21), by rejecting it for reasons of admissibility, i.e. non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (paras. 22-23). It is also concerning that the Court took into consideration that “Articles 59-65 of Law no. 3421/2005 provide for a system of alternative service for conscientious objectors to military service, including for reasons relating to religious beliefs. However, although the applicant’s submissions further touched upon the issue of conscientious objection, he did not seek to avail himself of that option under national law” (para. 17), but the Court did not take into consideration that such alternative service is punitive and discriminatory, including according to the Human Rights Committee. While it is true that it does not appear that the applicant has raised this specific argument, nevertheless, insofar it is the Court itself which invokes the existence of alternative service, it should have examined whether this is genuinely an option or just a mere punishment for conscientious objectors.

Finally, it is also generally concerning that the Court essentially decided on a conscientious objector’s case on the merits but pretended to decide on admissibility, finding most parts of the complaint “manifestly ill-founded”.

By this decision, the Court failed to address an obvious discrimination between different groups of monks in Greece.

The decision is also negative, in the sense that a different one would have given the opportunity for more exemptions of monks from compulsory military service. However, given the fact that it was based mainly on the special legal status of a particular area, it is not necessary that it will have major repercussions to other aspects concerning conscientious objectors in Greece, and much less in other countries.

ECSR unanimously considers admissible EBCO’s complaint

See the relevant paragraph in the Council of Europe chapter.

Council of State annuls rejection of application for CO status

In a case which has been supported by EBCO and other international organisations,³¹ according to information from his lawyer, in January 2026, the Council of State, Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court, accepted the appeal and annulled the decision of rejection of the 2022 application for conscientious objector status of Thomas Katsaros. However, this merely means that most certainly his application will have to be examined again in the same problematic system which has been criticised, inter alia, by the Human Rights Committee.

International organisations express serious concerns about composition of the Special Committee examining applications

In May 2025, four international organisations, Connection e.V., Conscience and Peace Tax International, the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection and War Resisters' International, after noting Greece’s failure to implement the recommendation of the UN Human Rights Committee that it “should also consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities", further expressed “extreme disquiet at the revision of Special Committee’s membership in December 2024, which calls further into question the independence and impartiality of the Committee, rendering suspect any rejections which it issues.” The four organisations highlighted that (a) a recently retired military officer was appointed as one of the “civilian” members of the Special Committee, (b) the Chair of the Special Committee before her first appointment as regular Chair she had represented the Ministry of Defence in a legal case against a conscientious objector before the Council of State, the supreme administrative court (which found for the objector)”.³²

Conscientious objector refusing punitive alternative civilian service declared insubordinate

A conscientious objector to military service, Loren Pashollari, has published a declaration³³ stating his refusal, on grounds of conscience, to perform military service but also the (punitive and discriminatory) alternative civilian service, considering it a punishment and coercion. He also rejected the idea of pretending to have a medical condition in order to seek medical exemption, as well as the scheme of buying out (alternative or military service for those above 33 years of age), refusing to pay money in order to avoid violation of his human rights. According to information received by EBCO, he has been declared insubordinate and consequently has been prohibited from leaving the country and the Greek authorities refused to issue him a passport. In addition to the above, an administrative fine of 6,000 euros has been imposed to him for insubordination, which is increased every month that it is not paid. Furthermore, the conscientious objector denounces a number of due process violations in his case, but his relevant complaints have been so far rejected by the domestic authorities.

His case illustrates the numerous violations of human rights suffered by conscientious objectors in Greece, including, inter alia, the right to conscientious objection to military service inherent to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to freedom from discrimination and the right to freedom of movement which includes the right to leave any country including their own.

Greek Ministry of National Defence continues to disregard both international law, standards and recommendations as well as domestic court judgements

In its response to an EBCO questionnaire, dated 8 December 2025,³⁴ the Ministry of National Defence (MoND), despite obvious efforts to portray the situation in Greece as in conformity with international human rights law, in fact it rather continues to show contempt both for international human rights law and standards, as reflected in the recommendations of international bodies, as well as for judgements of domestic courts. For example, the MoND claims that the alternative service is not punitive, contrary to the findings of the Human Rights Committee.³⁵

The MoND continues to conflate the possibility for the professional members of the armed forces to resign for whatever reasons, which in certain cases, though, entails serious financial consequences for those resigning, as they have to pay heavy compensations to the state,³⁶ with the right to conscientious objection for professional members of the armed forces, which should not entail any consequence whatsoever.

As for the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status, the MoND continues to disregard the judgements of the Council of State. (Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court). The MoND once more stated:

“The usual reason for which applications for eligibility for conscientious objector status and to perform alternative service are rejected is, mostly, because those interested do not support some specific ideology, which impedes them from performing armed military service, nor they associate their internal esprit with activities corresponding to their beliefs in order to be recognized as conscientious objectors and to perform alternative service. Specifically, the inability to perform military service on ideological or religious grounds is not proven, they just express their wish to perform alternative service”.³⁷ (emphasis added)

However, the Council of State, in its judgements 2263/2023 and 2264/2023 has ruled that: a) it is not necessary for the conscientious objection to derive from affiliation to a specific religious or other system, b) it is not necessary to be combined with relevant activity or specific actions.³⁸

CO status statistics

According to the official data provided to EBCO by the Greek Ministry of National Defence:³⁹

Statistics of applications for conscientious objector status in 2025 (until 8 December 2025)

Statistics of administrative appeals on applications for CO status in 2025 (until 8 December 2025)

Furthermore, the MoND has stated that in the decade 2015-2025 there were 4 applications of reservists for conscientious objector status which were all approved.⁴⁰ It appears that all 4 were registered in 2024, therefore, there was no application in 2025.

Article reveals granting of asylum to persons evading conscription in Syria and Eritrea

In the summer of 2025, an article in a law journal by Stamatia Kalogirou, a judge and member of the 20^th (formerly 21^st) Independent Appeal Committee of the Ministry of Migration & Asylum, revealed that, in recent years, refugee status was granted in Greece to persons from Syria (in the era of the previous regime) and Eritrea evading conscription in these countries. The relevant part of the article, in a rough translation, reads as follows:

“Furthermore, men and boys of age eligible for conscription in Syria, as well as persons who have evaded the military service or the deserters constitute a particular social group. To the above-mentioned group belong also persons who evade enlistment in the Syrian governmental forces as reservists, to which, first of all, an opposition to the regime can be attributed and they can be subjected, in case of return to Syria, to a particularly great risk of cruel ill-treatment, especially if they have resided for a certain period of time in areas which were under the control of the opposition. Furthermore, the above persons, in case of their return, there is a strong possibility, in the context of fulfilling their duties as members of the Syrian armed forces, to be forced, to be ordered to shoot civilians and protesters, including women and children, while a possible refusal to obey such orders can lead to detention, beatings, torture or even their killing.⁴¹ For these reasons it has been found that the compulsory conscription of these persons would entail their coercion to committing war crimes, such as violence to life and person, of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, (article 3 § 1 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which has been ratified by law 3481/1955 Government Gazette Issue (FEK) A΄ 3), therefore, these persons can be included in the particular social group of persons who refuse the compulsory conscription, with all the consequences deriving from their membership in it.⁴² The family members of the persons who have evaded compulsory conscription belong also to a particular social group.⁴³ Finally, for the same above-described reasons it has been found that men of Eritrean origin who refuse to be conscripted and fight constitute particular social group.⁴⁴”⁴⁵

Greek Ombudsman insists on his objections concerning the current regime for conscientious objectors

In the replies to EBCO’s questionnaire, the Greek Ombudsman referred to his extensive comments concerning the bill, which was subsequently adopted as Law 5265/2026. In these comments,⁴⁶ the Ombudsman referred, inter alia, to longstanding suggestions concerning the duration of alternative service (noting a European Parliament’s decision about equal duration between military and alternative service⁴⁷), the supervising authority (i.e., which should be independent from the military), the procedure for granting CO status, the disqualifying conditions, the nature of duties for those performing alternative service, and the procedure for revocation of CO status. But most importantly the Ombudsman criticised the introduction in the legislation of the prohibition for second application, as well as the provisions for the certificates of military status, suggesting that such certificates should rather include only the information of whether someone (still) has or has not military duties, and referring to decisions of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority.

In the replies to EBCO’s questionnaire, the Greek Ombudsman reiterated his objections concerning the current regime for conscientious objectors in Greece. Such objections include the procedure for granting conscientious objector status (Annual Report 2013: “Personal interview as a mean to ascertain reasons of conscience is controversial per se insofar it submits an internal esprit to an examination of sincerity. […] They are required to reply to questions concerning sensitive personal data.”), as well as the sanctions for insubordination, especially the disproportionate amount of money of the administrative fine, its repeated imposition, as well as the fact that conscientious objectors are summoned to trials before military courts.

1. Military expenditure figures are estimates published by SIPRI (The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) in April 2026.↩︎
2. 20 November – 5 December 2025. https://www.opengov.gr/mindefence/?p=7457↩︎
3. https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Nomothetiko-Ergo/Anazitisi-Nomothetikou-Ergou?law_id=8496c10a-135a-435f-94f4-b3b400ba9834↩︎
4. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Greece, (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3), 28 November 2024, paras. 28-29. Available at: https://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3↩︎
5. This part is largely based on the submission of the Association of Greek Conscientious Objectors (AGCO) to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the quadrennial analytical report on conscientious objection to military service. https://antirrisies.gr/2026-01-15-ypomnima-tetraeti-ekthesi-ohe-antirrisi-syneidisis/↩︎
6. OL GRC 3/2019, 11 July 2019, p. 3. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24700↩︎
7. Law 5265/2026, art. 223 and art. 230.↩︎
8. Law 5265/2026, art. 228, para. 4.↩︎
9. Hellenic Data Protection Authority, Decision 3/2022, 13 January 2022, Available in Greek at: https://www.dpa.gr/sites/default/files/2022-01/3_2022%20anonym.pdf↩︎
10. War Resisters’ International, Conscientious Objection to Military Service 2017-2022, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/WRI-HRC50.pdf, 22 March 2022, p. 2.↩︎
11. Greek Ombudsman, Comments on the draft law, p. 6. Available in Greek at: https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/default/post/parathrhseis-or-sxedio-nomoy-xarths-metabashs-twn-enoplwn-dynamewn-sth-nea-epoxh↩︎
12. Scientific Service of the Greek Parliament, Report on the draft law, p. 38, para. 26. Available in Greek at: https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/7b24652e-78eb-4807-9d68-e9a5d4576eff/13166405.pdf↩︎
13. Law 5265/2026, art. 238, paras. 3-4.↩︎
14. Law 3421/2025, art. 65, para. 1.↩︎
15. Law 5265/2026, art. 243.↩︎
16. Greek National Commission for Human Rights, Comments on the draft law, p. 11. Available in Greek at: https://nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/antirisies_suneidisis/__19122025.pdf↩︎
17. Law 5265/2026, art. 181, para. 4. Compare to Law 3421/2005, art. 13, para. 9.↩︎
18. Law 5265/2026, art. 225, para. 4.↩︎
19. Decision of the Minister of National Defence Φ.420/79/81978/Σ.300 (Government Gazette vol. Β΄ 1854/29.12.2005), article 1, para. 3.↩︎
20. E.g. Decisions of the Council of State Α3505/2014, A880/2017.↩︎
21. Law 5265/2026, art. 178, para. 1.↩︎
22. Law 5265/2026, arts. 269-277.↩︎
23. Law 5265/2026, art. 216, para. 2.↩︎
24. Law 5265/2026, art. 229, para. 8.↩︎
25. E.g. reports of 22 March 2025, 28 March 2025, 16 April 2025, 26 April 2025, 3 June 2025, 13 June 2025, 17 July 2025, 5 August 2025, 6 August 2025, 4 September 2025, 11 October 2025, 17 October 2025, 18 October 2025, 1 November 2025, 29 November 2025, 30 December 2025.↩︎
26. Report of 19 April 2025.↩︎

27. https://www.hcg.gr/el/epikairothta/synexeia-enhmerwshs-anaforika-me-thn-ptwsh-epibatidas-eg-og-ploioy-sth-8alassia-perioxh-toy-sarwnikoy-kolpoy-thn-12032025-by8ish-ak-skafoys-sthn-kalymno-syllhpsh-hmedapoy-sthn-patra-diakomides-as8enwn/

    See also relevant article in Greek, dated 14 March 2025, on the website of the local newspaper Peloponnisos: https://pelop.gr/synelifthi-anypotaktos-stin-patra-prospathise-na-taxidefsei-sto-exoteriko/↩︎

28. “Σκληρή απόφαση: Στη φυλακή 34χρονος για ανυποταξία σε καιρό ειρήνης” [“Harsh decision: A 34-year-old in prison for insubordination in time of peace”], paidis.com, 12 February 2025. Available in Greek at: https://paidis.com/%cf%83%ce%ba%ce%bb%ce%b7%cf%81%ce%ae-%ce%b1%cf%80%cf%8c%cf%86%ce%b1%cf%83%ce%b7-%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b7-%cf%86%cf%85%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%ba%ce%ae-34%cf%87%cf%81%ce%bf%ce%bd%ce%bf%cf%82-%ce%b3%ce%b9%ce%b1/

    The article was reproduced also on another local news website: https://www.onlarissa.gr/2025/02/13/sti-fylaki-34chronos-larisaios-gia-anypotaxia-se-kairo-eirinis/↩︎

29. ECSR, Complaint No. 242/2024 European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) v. Greece. https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter/-/no.-242/2024-european-bureau-for-conscientious-objection-ebco-v.-greece↩︎
30. ECtHR, Tsiliggros v. Greece, Application no. 51957/15, Decision of 4 November 2025. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-247535↩︎

31. “Greece: Give Thomas Katsaros a fair examination of his grounds for conscientious objection”, Joint Public Statement, Amnesty International, Connection e.V., War Resisters’ International, International Fellowship of Reconciliation and European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, 3 March 2023, (Index: EUR 25/6508/2023). https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur25/6508/2023/en/

    See also: EBCO annual report 2022-23, p. 42. https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/attachments/2023-05-12-EBCO_Annual_Report_2022-23.pdf↩︎

32. https://ebco-beoc.org/press-release/2025-05-21-joint-statement-examination-conscientious-objectors-greece↩︎
33. Available in Greek at: https://antirrisies.gr/loren-pasolari/↩︎
34. Ministry of National Defence, “Conscientious Objectors”, (Φ.429/9/161525 Σ. 23277), 8 December 2025.↩︎
35. Ibid. para. 2.↩︎
36. Ibid. para. 1(στ)-(f).↩︎
37. Ibid. para. 1(ε)-(e).↩︎
38. See EBCO Annual Report, “Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Europe 2023/24”, p. 87. Available at: https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/2024-05-15-EBCO_Annual_Report_2023-24.pdf↩︎
39. Ministry of National Defence, “Conscientious Objectors”, (Φ.429/9/161525 Σ. 23277), 8 December 2025, Annexes A and B.↩︎
40. Ibid. para. 1(ζ)-(g)↩︎
41. [Note in the original] See the preamble of the new Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 (§38), where it is cited that “Acts of persecution might take the form of disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment. Such disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment might arise, inter alia, in situations where an applicant refuses to perform military service on moral, religious or political grounds or due to belonging to a particular ethnic group or holding a particular citizenship.”↩︎
42. [Note in the original] See decisions 579200/17.9.2024 and 161222/8.3.2024 of the 21^st Committee.↩︎
43. [Note in the original] See decisions 190425/26.3.2024, 64617/30.1.2024 of the 21^st Committee.↩︎
44. [Note in the original] See decision IP/68269/31.1.2024 of the 21^st Committee.↩︎
45. Stamatia Kalogirou, “Η ένταξη σε ιδιαίτερη κοινωνική ομάδα ως λόγος χορήγησης προσφυγικού καθεστώτος στη νομολογία των ελληνικών διοικητικών δικαστηρίων και των Ανεξάρτητων Επιτροπών της Αρχής Προσφυγών” [“Membership to a particular social group as ground for granting refugee status in the jurisprudence of the Greek administrative courts and the Independent Committees of the Appeals Authority”], Διοικητική Δίκη [Administrative Trial], vol. 4/2025(37), July/August 2025, pp. 574-575.↩︎
46. Greek Ombudsman, Comments on the draft law, pp. 5-6. Available in Greek at: https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/default/post/parathrhseis-or-sxedio-nomoy-xarths-metabashs-twn-enoplwn-dynamewn-sth-nea-epoxh↩︎
47. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0012_EN.html (§ 42)↩︎