Greece

Current situation & recent developments

As reported by Georgios Karatzas:

Double-edged judgements of the Council of State: In December 2023 the Council of State, the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece announced the judgements in three cases concerning conscientious objectors to military service. All three cases were examined by a composition of 7 judges (instead of usually 5), due to their importance.

The first judgement (2262/2023) concerned the issue of the length of alternative civilian service. Five applicants for conscientious objector (CO) status and for performing alternative civilian service had lodged an appeal in December 2019 against the joint ministerial decision of October 2019 of the Ministers of National Defence, and of Finance,^[1] to increase (for the first time in Greek history) the length of the alternative civilian service, for all categories of full and reduced service. By this ministerial decision, the length of the alternative civilian service, for those liable to full service, was increased from 12 to 15 months, in comparison to 9 months (by that time) of military service in the Army, where the vast majority of conscripts serve, (i.e., 67% longer), and 12 months of military service in the Navy and the Air Force.

In essence, the appealed ministerial decision, by the ministers of the then recently elected government, annulled a decision^[2] of the Minister of National Defence of the previous government, who, only 4 months earlier, and a few days before the elections, had reduced the length of alternative service for all categories of full and reduced service (e.g., for those liable to full service from 15 to 12 months). Therefore, the contested joint ministerial decision reinstated the previous length of alternative service.

The Council of State, by majority of 4 to 3, rejected the appeal against the joint ministerial decision which increased the length of alternative service. Firstly, the court found that the legislative provision (which stipulates that the length of alternative service is double the length of military service, but it can be reduced by decision of the Minister of National Defence, albeit without becoming less than the maximum length of military service among the three branches of the armed forces – i.e., usually not less than the military service in the Navy and the Air Force) is “constitutionally tolerable”. The court also found that the contested ministerial decision which increased the length of alternative service was lawful and that the length of alternative service has not become punitive. The majority of the Council of State found that it is not necessary for the administration (i.e., the Ministers) to provide the reason for such decision to increase the length of alternative service. Nevertheless, the court itself provided its own reasons as for why the length of alternative service can be greater than the length of military service. Interestingly, the court found, inter alia, that a greater length of alternative service can be used to verify the sincerity of conscientious objection. However, this contradicts the repeated jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee that testing the sincerity of an individual's convictions does not satisfy the requirement that the difference in treatment (i.e., the difference of length between the alternative and the military service) is based on reasonable and objective criteria.^[3]

Worth also noting that:

• The court cited briefly international law and standards, including reference to Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations for several states, as well the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR)’s decision on the collective complaint No. 08/2000 of the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) v. Greece.^[4] However, the Council of State only cited as examples of punitive ratio of alternative / military service those of 1.7, 1.75 or 2. This is despite the fact that the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations for Greece,^[5] cited in the judgement, concerned a ratio of 1.67 (and in fact, the exact same ratio as the one examined by the Council of State in this case); the ECSR’s acceptable standard is no more than 1.5; and the cited Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations for Austria concerned a ratio of 1.5,^[6] for which the Committee noted that it could be punitively long if not based on reasonable and objective grounds, referring to articles 18 and 26 of ICCPR.^[7]
• Despite explicitly citing as punitive ratios those of 1.7, 1.75 or 2, the majority of the court found the current legislative provision “constitutionally tolerable”. Only one of the judges had a dissenting opinion that the legislative provision stipulating that the conscientious objectors are obliged to perform an alternative (civilian) service of double length in comparison to the length of the military service, is punitive and discriminatory, citing articles 9 of ECHR and articles 8 and 18 of ICCPR and concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee. She also opined that the fact that the Minister of National Defence has the right to reduce the length of alternative service down to equal to that of (the maximum) military service, is not sufficient to make the legislative provision compatible with the aforementioned provisions of international law, insofar it is at the discretion of the Minister of National Defence.
• Three of the judges, including the President of the relevant section, who is also one of the Vice-Presidents of the entire Council of State, had a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Minister of National Defence should provide the reason for such decision to increase the length of alternative service, which was lacking in this case.

Finally, worth noting the delay in issuing the judgement. The judgement was issued 4 years after lodging the appeal, which means that it was probably too late anyway to have any effect for those who lodged it. Furthermore, the circumstances have already been altered, insofar the length of the full military service in the Army has been already, since March 2021, increased too, albeit for different reasons, from 9 to 12 months, making it equal to the length in the Navy and the Air Force, and three months shorter than the length of full alternative civilian service.

The other two judgements (2263/2023, 2264/2023) concerned appeals against rejection of applications for CO status by the Minister of National Defence, following recommendation by the Special Committee examining applications. Both cases concerned applicants having ideological pacifist beliefs originating from the fact that they have been raised in families of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although they are not Jehovah’s Witness themselves. Both cases have been highlighted by international organisations including EBCO.^[8]

In both cases, the court accepted the appeals and annulled the ministerial decisions of rejection as insufficiently substantiated. The court ordered the re-examination of their applications.

Both judgements have positive, negative, and double-edged aspects.

As for the positive aspects:

• In an important shift to its previous jurisprudence, the Council of State 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.
• Furthermore, the court pointed out that the fact that the applicants stated that they were not Jehovah’s Witnesses, despite being easier to be granted CO status if you are, could also be perceived as evidence of sincerity. This could facilitate, in the future, the recognition of applicants from this specific sub-group (people raised in JWs families without being themselves).

As for the negative aspects:

• The Council of State explicitly rejected as unfounded all the structural arguments, concerning independence and impartiality, against the current procedure for granting CO status. More specifically, it found that the participation of a military officer of the Joint Legal Corps of the Armed Forces in the 5-membered Special Committee examining the applications poses no problem as for the independence of such committee, citing the reduction of military members, (from 2 to 1), and the increase of civilian members, (from 3 to 4), of the committee following an amendment of the legislation in 2019. It further found that the special roles of such military officer, being both the rapporteur as well the secretary of the committee, also does not pose a problem, considering them not of decisive importance. It also noted the role of the committee to make only a recommendation – even though it was the composition of the committee which was crucial in the Papavasilakis v. Greece case at the ECtHR.
• Similarly, the court found that the Minister of National Defence, who takes the decision, does not participate in the procedure as a “military” person but rather as a member of the government responsible for the execution of this sector of the governmental policy which is exercised according to the Constitution and the law, including the “protective” provisions for conscientious objectors, which the Minister, by duty, needs to embrace and implement. Therefore, the court concluded that there is no problem of independence and impartiality! The above rulings of the Council of State clearly contradict various international human rights standards, including, but not limited to, the recommendations of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe,^[9] the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief,^[10] the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, to “consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities”,^[11] and the observations and recommendations of OHCHR.^[12]
• The Council of State appears to introduce an extremely limited concept of conscientious objection which requires the objector to detest with “moral intensity and seriousness any form of violence without exception”! This is a requirement which is not even explicitly mentioned in the Greek legislation (some requirements related to violence, which are anyway rejected, in part or in whole, by the OHCHR^[13] or organisations such as Amnesty International,^[14] are only referring to the use of guns, ammunition and illegal violence). Furthermore, such concept of conscientious objection limited only to absolute non-violence clearly contradicts international standards about selective conscientious objection.^[15]

Finally, the concept introduced in all three judgements, that the greater length of alternative service, in comparison to that of military service, constitutes evidence of sincerity, is double-edged. On the one hand, it is a strong argument that can be used by applicants, and it is expected to facilitate granting of conscientious objector status. But on the other hand, not only it contradicts the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, as explained above, but it is expected to undermine the longstanding efforts of conscientious objectors to address discrimination and to achieve an alternative civilian service of equal length to that of military service.

Boycott of the “conscience examination committee” and unduly intervention of the Recruiting Service: In March 2023, several conscientious objectors from Greece issued a renewed call to boycott the special committee examining applications for conscientious objector (CO) status, commonly called “conscience examination committee”. In their call, they cited inter alia, the international and regional human rights standards on the procedures for granting CO status, which are violated in the case of Greece, as well the fact that the percentage of recognition of applicants on ideological (non-religious) grounds dropped to 0% in 2021 according to official figures.^[16] While insisting on the long-standing opinion of conscientious objectors, supported by European Parliament resolutions, that no committee can examine their conscience, they called for fellow conscientious objectors to refuse to be examined by the “conscience examination committee” at least until some minimum standards are followed, i.e. the removal of the procedure from the Ministry of National Defence, which means that the Minister of National Defence should not take the decision for CO status, and that no military officers should participate in the committee examining the applications.^[17]

Around the same days, a conscientious objector on ideological grounds publicly refused to be examined by the “conscience examination committee”.^[18] Initially, his application, despite being well substantiated, was rejected by the Minister of National Defence after recommendation of the special committee. He submitted an administrative appeal (“aitisi therapeias”), providing further information and documentation about his conscientious objection to military service, but also pointing out, inter alia, several misconceptions, contradictions, procedural errors and legislative flaws, constituting violations of the law.

Worth noting that the Recruiting Service of Attica, which also received the administrative appeal, unduly intervened in the essence of the case, stating in a letter to the Directorate of Legal Corps of the Hellenic National Defence General Staff that: “The Service is of the opinion that the present application should be rejected, since it is not inferred from the submitted documentation that the claimed reasons of conscience are derived from some specific ideology philosophical, religious or political which impede him to fulfil his military obligations in arms”.^[19] It is not known whether this is a standard practice of the Recruiting Services or not, but in any case it constitutes a flagrant violation of international human rights law and standards, as well the Greek legislation, insofar a purely military body, which is not even responsible for such recommendations, recommends the rejection of an application for CO status, not even on some procedural, but purely on substantive grounds.

The conscientious objector was summoned again before the same special committee which had examined his initial application. This time, he appeared before the committee, but insisted on his refusal to be examined, submitting only further documents. This time, the committee unanimously recommended granting CO status, which the Minister of National Defence actually did.

CO status statistics for 2023: Following a request by conscientious objector Nikolaos Nikolopoulos, the Hellenic National Defence General Staff provided the following statistics as of the applications for CO status, as well as for administrative appeals (aitisi therapeias) against rejections, for 2023:^[20]

Statistics of applications for conscientious objector status in 2023

Statistics of administrative appeals on applications for CO status in 2023

The statistics reveal the continuation of the chronic problems, especially as for the discrimination based on different grounds of conscientious objection, with the Minister of National Defence and the Special Committee rejecting 75% of applications which cited ideological beliefs.

Trial in military court and arrest of a total objector: According to information from his lawyer, in October 2023 the Military Court of Athens examined the case of a total objector on charges of insubordination, for refusing to perform both the military and the (punitive) alternative civilian service. During the trial, the Military Court discovered that the total objector was again in situation of insubordination, following a renewed call-up for military service. Therefore, the Prosecutor recommended to postpone the trial, so that the second period of insubordination can be examined together with the first. The Military Court indeed postponed the trial for October 2024. However, the Military Court ordered the arrest of the total objector, according to the procedures for recently committed offences. This is due to the fact that the offence of insubordination is considered a “continuous crime”, which means that someone is considered to be committing it continuously throughout the period he is insubordinate. Indeed, the total objector was arrested and brought to the police station of Moschato for a preliminary examination. He was subsequently released, following order of the Prosecutor.

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 arrests of conscientious objectors, including total objectors, at any moment, in violation of the right to liberty.

Trial in military court for not continuing the punitive alternative civilian service: Another trial of a conscientious objector to military service occurred in April 2023 at the Military Court of Athens. In this case, the conscientious objector had been recognised as such, he had initiated the punitive alternative civilian service, but at some point, he interrupted it, obtaining a referment. When he did not return to continue at the scheduled date, he was declared insubordinate, in 2019, and several months later, he was arrested in 2020 by the police. The Military Court of Athens unanimously decided to cease the prosecution of the conscientious objector due to the fact that he had been granted exemption for medical reasons in the meantime.

However, what is interesting in this case, is that the Military Court examined a case of insubordination concerning the alternative civilian service, not military service, and despite the accused being a recognised conscientious objector. In the past, in the case of Lazaros Petromelidis, in 2004, another military court, the Naval Court of Thessaloniki, had found itself not having jurisdiction to examine a case of insubordination related to the alternative civilian service, had referred the case to civilian justice and the case did not move forward. Of course, in that case, Petromelidis’ CO status was revoked, and he was repeatedly sentenced by military courts for insubordination related to subsequent call-ups for military service.

In the present case, the prosecution was for insubordination related to the alternative civilian service. However, since the military court ceased the prosecution for another reason, it is not sure whether the military court would find itself incompetent, as in the 2004 case.

Arrests of civilians for insubordination: According to official police reports,^[21] in 2023 police continued to arrest civilians for insubordination.

Continuing failure to implement a decision of the Human Rights Committee: Greece continues its failure to implement the 2021 UN Human Rights Committee decision in the case of conscientious objector Lazaros Petromelidis,^[22] both as for remedying the human rights violations he has personally suffered (reimbursement of all sums paid as financial penalties instead of imprisonment, adequate compensation, expunging of criminal record), as well as for amending the relevant legislation on conscientious objectors.^[23]

Further issues of discrimination and financial burden: In 2023, there have been in Greece consecutive parliamentary elections in May and June. In this case, conscientious objectors face another discrimination,^[24] since there is no provision permitting them to vote in the place of alternative civilian service,^[25] contrary to conscripts who are permitted to vote in the place of military service.^[26] This results in additional financial burden for transportation to the region where someone is registered to vote.

Further discrimination has been identified in the context of a new tax law, concerning mainly those self-employed. While conscripts performing the military service are explicitly cited among those who are eligible for challenging that they have received the established minimum annual income, conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service are not.^[27]

Finally, it has been reported by conscientious objectors in Greece that applicants for CO status, especially those citing ideological (non-religious) grounds, or those citing religious grounds, but who are not baptised Jehovah’s Witnesses, are summoned to examination by the special committee in the premises of the Ministry of National Defence in Athens. This means that, regardless of how far they live, they need to travel at their own cost to Athens, which constitutes an additional financial burden, and a further discrimination compared to conscripts. The punitive character of this procedure is evident considering the fact that, contrary to the applicants, the members of the special committee may participate in the session remotely.

Improvements and positive developments: Following a question/request by conscientious objector Theodoros Diamantidis, the Ministry of National Defence issued a circular^[28] recognising that conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service are, equivalently to conscripts performing military service, eligible for free transportation in the cities of Athens and Thessaloniki, for the years 2022-2023.^[29] This partially addressed the discrimination as of transportation. In November 2023, by joint decisions of the Minister of National Defence, the Deputy Minister of Economy and Finance, and the Minister and Deputy Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation,^[30] conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service were included among the beneficiaries of free transportation in Athens, Thessaloniki and 10 more cities, for the year 2024.^[31]

Following a refusal of free entry in the Acropolis Museum, to the above mentioned conscientious objector, while he was performing alternative civilian service, he submitted a formal request to the Ministry of Culture, as well to the Museum of Acropolis, for COs to be recognised as eligible for free entry in museums and archeological sites, equivalently to conscripts performing military service. By decision of the Board of Directors of Acropolis Museum, COs were indeed recognised as eligible for free entry.^[32] However, there is no information yet for a general decision of the Ministry of Culture. Conscientious objectors have submitted a complaint to the Greek Ombudsman,^[33] which is supporting the request for equal treatment in this field too.

In February 2024, in the context of a new law about equality in civil marriage, there has been another positive development concerning discrimination. Specifically, the protection from discrimination in the public and private sector was broadened to include, inter alia, religious or other beliefs.^[34] While conscientious objectors are not explicitly mentioned, neither the provision was necessarily voted having them in mind, this could be potentially used by conscientious objectors performing alternative service to achieve equal treatment, for example, as of the new tax law cited above, or as of services in the private sector (e.g. reduced fares, similar to those for conscripts, in intercity buses, trains or boats).^[35]