As part of the International Conference entitled “Karpenisi, August 1944. 80 years since the destruction of the city. National and European dimensions “, the former President of the Republic and Academician Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos He spoke on the subject: “The legally active and the judicial pursuit of Greece’s claims against the Federal Republic of Germany, the occupation loan and with the general compensation for the victims and disasters of Nazi atrocities.” In his speech, Mr. Pavlopoulos pointed out, among other things, as follows:
“Prologue
More than 80 years ago, between August 5-21, 1944, he took place, in the wider area of mountainous Aetolia and Evritania, another turny crime of Nazi atrocity. It was the horrible military clearing “ELIDNA”, designed and executed by the 104th Hunters’ 104th Division, in order to ruthlessly avenging the epic struggle of the National Resistance mainly in the mountainous volumes between Agrinio and Karpenis. Since August 8, 1944, Karpenissi and its inhabitants experienced- for the second and more gloomy times, given that the first was already organized on November 7, 1943- unprecedented, almost totalitarian, disasters with numerous unarmed victims, beyond those of the heroic members. For the history of the Nazi destruction of Karpenisi, others will speak, much more responsible for me, in the context of such a remarkable conference, in which I have the great honor to participate. That is why I will only refer to the major national issue of our country’s general demands against the Federal Republic of Germany, the occupied loan and with the general compensation for the victims and the destruction of Nazi atrocities.
I. The broader legal framework
It is now a common belief that it is the very concept of international and European legality that establishes, in full, Greece’s claims to the occupation loan and in general compensation for the victims and material disasters of Nazi atrocities.
A. And this is because the justice of history, in order for the message “we never forget again” to become a practice, requires the perpetrators to complete their “apology” by attributing to Greece what it rights. Which means that if the Federal Republic of Germany means and fully recognizes its responsibilities for its Nazi past, it must, immediately, do against Greece, which imposes both the historical path of the European Union and our common European culture, especially our European culture.
B. I remember our basic positions – which are also our national positions, after the crimes of Nazi atrocity against Greece and the Greek people have been committed – in terms of our claims. It is clarified, from the outset, that we are dealing with two completely different, legal, issues.
II. The types of Greek requirements
In particular it is not:
A. First, for the occupation loan to Germany, which was compulsorily concluded- mostly in a forced and blackmailing manner- between the prestigious occupation government and Germany, to maintain the occupation troops. So here is a legal point of view for “contract guilt”. Therefore, the corresponding claim of Greece’s contract is intra -contractual – and not of delinquency – origin.
1. This requirement is added, which arises from the reasons related to the loan agreement, such as the interest of default due to non -timely repayment.
2. For this requirement there is neither a limitation issue nor a matter of resignation. There is only a question of overall calculation to date. It should be noted that the Greek position becomes legally as strong as the repayment of the loan had already begun in the occupation period.
B. And, secondly, for compensation for human victims and material disasters in Greece by the Nazi occupation troops.
1. It should be noted, first and foremost, that in 1946, at the Paris Conference, a- approaching- amount of such compensation to Greece of $ 7.5 billion had been determined. It is not mainly emphasized that in 1953, with the London agreement, its debts were not “given” to Germany due to war compensation, such as the German side “artificially” it seems to be claiming.
a) This agreement merely raised Germany’s debts to the signature, under international law (law law), a “peace agreement” between the latter and the forces that defeated World War II. It is legally a kind of Lato Sensu “procrastination” about the repayment of Germany’s obligations, because it was then considered that it did not have- first of all because of its division of Western and Eastern- the international law required by the state required to assume and fulfill relevant obligations.
b) This- so the ability to conclude a “peace agreement”- came 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 “Pact 2 + 4” was signed between the now united Germany and the US, USSR, France and England.
c) It is done today, generally and officially, Germany has not accepted it, since it supports its overall sovereignty on this basis- that the above-mentioned position is in the position of the “Peace Pact” which provided for, in international law, the above-mentioned agreement. “Pact”, since only then, in the above, acquired its unity and its unified sovereignty after World War II.
(d) “Pact 2 + 4” covers, because of its legal nature and its generality, and non -containers but “sufferers” by the German occupation, such as Greece. That is, it is a general application of general application.
2. The Greek legal basis for compensation claims against Germany finds a steady basis mainly in the provisions of Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention, which also codified the provisions of the law of the war until then.
(a) According to these provisions: “The warman who wishes to violate the provisions of the Regulation shall be obliged, if there is a reason, in compensation, and shall be responsible for all acts committed by the persons of his military force.” After all, the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the “Regulation of Laws and Customs of the War”, which is annexed to the 4th Convention of the Hague in 1907, establish both fundamental principles of war law. That is, the principles of protecting human respect and individual ownership.
b) All these principles was updated by the ruling of the Nuremberg International Military Court in 1946. This had accepted, against the Greek government – in 1965 – the then Chancellor Ludwig Earhart. He had not talked about remedies of 500 million German marks.
III. The main elements of documentation
From what has been exposed it is clear that our claims above, from which we have never resigned in any way, are always legally active- which means that no limitation issue is raised- and judicial.
A. And our common European legal culture, as part of our general public culture composed of the provisions but also by the fundamental principles and values of European and international legitimacy, imposes the decision to take the relevant jurisdiction, based on the whole of the applicable law.
B. This position is, literally, national and, consequently, non -negotiable. Most notably when the recent opinion (2019) is now reinforced by the Federal Office of the German Parliament (Bundestag). Which, on the one hand, acknowledges that there is no question of resigning or limiting the claims of Greece. And, on the other hand, he urges- and even “Expressis Verbis”- the German side to accept Greece’s appeal to the Hague International Court of Justice. And therefore only reflection is raised by its rejection of Greece in June of the same year, in June of the same year, in June of the same year -but subsequently, direct or indirectly, rejected -rejected with the prospect of appealing to the competent jurisdiction for the competent forum for its resolved forum. occupational loan and with the general compensation.
Epilogue
The above -mentioned refusal by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, with the ignorance of all the above
– Plusly substantiated- legal arguments, it appears completely unjustified, given that it is in a glaring contrast to both European and international legitimacy. In addition, this refusal is extremely contradictory and hypocritical, since it is not conceivable and acceptable, in terms of consistent international behavior, the Federal Republic of Germany on the one hand to attempt, in many cases, to “deliver” respects, by other states, of the European and international law. And, on the other hand, she refuses to comply with them, when it comes to victims and damage coming from her nightmarish Nazi past. A past that has, after all, has, publicly and internationally, condemned and denied by all means and in every way. Under these circumstances, it is certain that with such behavior the Federal Republic of Germany undermines, “from the inside”, its credibility and its prestige, at European and international level. So it goes without saying that Greece does not accept, nor will it accept this denial in any way. Which means that it will come back in this case, giving even greater extent and emphasis on its legal – and not only – arguments. “
Plot Cleaning: Compulsory from April 1 – procedures and fines
Bruce Willis: Doctors are concerned about his health after photos released by his 70th birthday