P. Pavlopoulos: Greece’s claims against Germany are always legally active and judicially enforceable

The former President of the Republic and Honorary Professor of the Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos attended the Annual Memorial for the Witnesses of the Holocaust of Kalavrita, who were executed by the German occupation troops. again”.

In his speech, Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos pointed out, among others, the following:

“The blood-stained land of the Martyrs of Kalavrita and the souls of the tragic Victims, who are constantly wandering in this Holy Place, remind, forever and in every direction, the most heinous war crime in Greece during the Second World War. , in conditions of the Holocaust that refer to a real Crime against Humanity, by the Nazi occupation troops on December 13, 1943. In fulfilling National Debt, we literally honor this year the Holy Memory of the Tragic Victims of Nazi atrocities by sending, urbi “We will never forget, never again.” And thank you very much for giving me, once again, the opportunity to participate in this Sacred Pilgrimage within this framework of Historical Memory – and far from any logic of revenge, which is completely foreign to us, the Greeks – we also include the claims of Greece regarding the occupation loan and the general compensations for the victims and the material destruction of Nazi atrocities. This is because the Justice of History, in order for the message “We do not forget, Never again” to become an act, requires the perpetrators to complete their “apology” by giving Greece what rightfully belongs to it. Which means that if the Federal Republic of Germany understands and fully recognizes its responsibilities for the Nazi past, it must immediately do to Greece what is required by both the Historical Path of the European Union and our common people. European Culture, and in particular our common European Legal Culture. And in this I remind you of our basic positions – which are also our National Positions, after the crimes of the Nazi atrocities against Greece and the Greek People were committed – regarding our above demands. It is clarified, from the outset, that we are dealing with two completely different issues, from a legal point of view. Namely:

A. First, with the occupation loan to Germany, which was concluded obligatorily – or rather in a forced and extortionate way – between the occupying Greek government and Germany, in order to maintain the occupation troops. This is, therefore, from a legal point of view, a contractual obligation. Thus, the corresponding claim of Greece from the contract is of intra-contractual – and not tortious – origin.

1. To this requirement are added amounts which arise from reasons related to the loan agreement, such as in particular default interest due to late repayment.

2. Neither the issue of limitation nor the issue of resignation is raised for this claim. There is only a question of its overall calculation to date. It should be noted that the Greek position becomes legally stronger, as the repayment of the loan had already begun during the occupation period.

B. And, secondly, with the compensations due to human victims and material disasters in Greece by the occupying forces.

1. It should be noted, first of all, that in 1946, at the Paris Conference, an approximate amount of such compensation to Greece of $ 7.5 billion was set. It is not particularly emphasized that in 1953, with the London Agreement, Germany’s debts were not “granted” due to war reparations, as the German side “artificially” seems to be claiming.

a) This Agreement merely “put intoactivity” Germany’s debts until the signing, under International Law (Law of War), of a “Peace Pact” between the latter and the Powers that won World War II. It is legally a kind of “procrastination” (lato sensu), related to the repayment of Germany’s obligations, because at that time it was considered that it did not have – primarily due to its division into Western and Eastern – the state status required by international law for undertaking and fulfilling related obligations.

b) This – that is, the ability to conclude a “Peace Pact” – occurred in 1990. When, after the reunification of Germany, the latter acquired a single, legally, state status and sovereignty. In particular, in 1990 the so-called “2 + 4 Pact” was signed between the now united Germany and the USA, the USSR, France and England.

c) It is now accepted, in general and officially, – de facto Germany has not accepted it, since on this basis it supports its general sovereignty – that the above Pact has the position of the “Peace Pact” which provides, according to International Law, the aforementioned London Agreement of 1953. This is because only since then has Germany been able to sign such a “Pact”, since only then, as foretold, has it acquired its unity and its sovereignty after the Second World War. War.

d) The “Pact 2 + 4” covers, due to its legal nature but also its generality, the non-contracting but “suffering” from the German occupation States, such as Greece. In other words, it is a legal text of general application.

2. The Greek legal basis of the compensation claims against Germany finds a firm basis mainly in the provisions of article 3 of the Hague Convention of 1907, which codified the previous provisions of the Law of War.

a) According to these provisions: “The combatant whoever wanted to violate the provisions of the Regulations will be obliged, if there is a reason, to compensation, and will be responsible for all acts committed by the persons participating in his military force”. Subsequently, the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the “Regulation of Laws and Customs of War on Land”, which is annexed to the Hague Convention 1907, establish both fundamental principles of the Law of War, namely the principles of protection respect for Man and private property.

b) All these principles were updated by the decision of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, in 1946. This was officially accepted by the Greek Government, in 1965, by the then Chancellor Ludwig Earhart. He himself had not spoken about reparations amounting to 500 million German marks.

It follows from what has been stated that our above claims, which we have never and in any way waived, are always legally active – which means that there is no issue of limitation – and are legally enforceable. And our common European Legal Culture, as part of our common European Culture, which is composed of the provisions but also of the fundamental principles and values ​​of European and International Legality, imposes the relevant decision to be taken by a competent Judicial Forum, with on the basis of the whole of International Law applicable in this case. This position is literally National and, consequently, non-negotiable. Especially when this position is now catalytically strengthened by the recent opinion (2019) of the Federal Office of Experts of the German Parliament (Bundestag). Which on the one hand acknowledges that there is no question of resignation or limitation of claims in Greece. And, on the other hand, it urges, “expressis verbis”, the German side to accept the appeal of Greece and Germany to the competent International Court of Justice in The Hague. Therefore, the only concern is the rejection of 18.10.2019, from June of the same year, of a fully documented verbal communication of Greece – but also subsequent, direct or indirect, rejections – regarding the prospect of appealing to a competent judicial Forum, for the final settlement of the relevant dispute regarding the claims of Greece regarding the occupation loan and the German compensations. The above-mentioned refusal of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, ignoring all the above, fully substantiated, legal arguments, appears completely unjustified, given that it is contrary to both European and International Legality. Moreover, this refusal is highly contradictory and hypocritical, since it is not conceivable and acceptable, in terms of consistent international conduct, for the Federal Republic of Germany, on the one hand, to attempt, in many cases, to “teach lessons” of respect, on the other. States, International and European Legality. And, on the other hand, to deny its compliance with them, in fact when it comes to victims and damages arising from its nightmarish Nazi past, which it has, publicly and internationally, condemned and denounced by any means and in any way. In these circumstances, it is certain that, by its aforementioned conduct, the Federal Republic of Germany is undermining, “from within”, its credibility and prestige at European and International level. Of course, Greece does not accept, nor will it accept, in any way, this denial. Which means it’s going to come back to the forefront, giving even more scope and emphasis to its legal arguments – and more. ”