In the context of the International Congress 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 spoke on: «The legally active and judicial pursuit of Greece’s claims against the Federal Republic of Germany, the occupied loan and with the general compensation for the victims and disasters of Nazi atrocity.». 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 clearance operation “Viper“, Which he designed and executed with real barbarism or 104or Hunters Division, in order to ruthlessly avenge the epic struggle of the National Resistance mainly to the mountainous tumors between Agrinio and Karpenisi. By 8or August 1944 Karpenissi and its inhabitants experienced – for the second and more gloomy times, given that the first was already organized on 7or November 1943- unprecedented, almost totalitarian, disasters with numerous unarmed victims, beyond those heroic members of the National Resistance who fell previously fell into the Nazi battles there. 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. This is because the justice of history, in order for the message “We never forget, never again»To become act, requires the perpetrators to complete ‘apology“Paying them to Greece what it rightfully belongs to. 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. For this I remind us of 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 claims
In particular it is not:
A. Firstfor the occupation loan to Germany, which was compulsorily concluded- mostly forced and blackmail- between the prestigious occupation government and Germany, to maintain the occupation troops. So here is a legal point of view for ‘Contract guilty’. Therefore, the corresponding claim of Greece’s contract is intra -contractual – and not of delinquency – origin.
- To this claim are added amounts, which arise from reasons related to the loan agreement, such as the interest of default due to non -timely repayment.
- There is neither a matter of limitation nor a matter of resignation for this claim. 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, secondfor compensation due to human victims and material disasters in Greece by the Nazi occupation troops.
- It should be noted, first of all, that in 1946, at the Paris Conference, an 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, “were given»In Germany its debts due to war allowances, such as the German side”artily»It seems to be claiming.
a) This agreement merely raised ‘in inactivity»Germany’s debts to signature, under international law (war law), ‘Peace»Between the latter and the forces that won in World War II. It is legally a kind of Lato Sensu «sorting“Concerning the repayment of Germany’s obligations, because it was then considered that it did not have- first of all, because of its division into Western and Eastern- the international law required to undertake and fulfill related obligations.
b) This – so the ability to conclude ‘Peace»- It came in 1990. When, after Germany’s reunification, the latter acquired a single, legally, state-status and sovereignty. In particular, in 1990 the so -called “Pact of 2 + 4»Between the now United Germany and the US, USSR, France and England.
c) It is done today, generally and officially, accepted –in fact Germany has not accepted it, since on this basis it supports its overall sovereignty- that the above pact is in its position “Peace»Which provided for, under international law, the aforementioned London agreement in 1953. This is because only Germany could sign such a”Pact“, Since only then, in the above, did it acquire its unity and unified domination after World War II.
d) The ‘Pact of 2 + 4“Covers, because of its legal nature and its generality, and non -contractors but”sufferer»From the German occupation states, such as Greece. That is, it is a general application of general application.
- The Greek legal basis for compensation claims against Germany finds a firm basis mainly in the provisions of Article 3 of the 4th Convention of the Hague in 1907, which also codified the provisions of the law of the war until then.
a) In accordance with these provisions: ‘The warrior who wanted to violate the provisions of the Rules of Procedure will be obliged, if there is a reason, in compensation, and will be responsible for all acts committed by the persons of his military power.” Then, the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of ‘War’s Laws and Customs Regulation on land“, Who is attached to the 4th Convention of the Hague in 1907, establish both the fundamental principles of the law of war. That is, the principles of protecting human respect and individual ownership.
b) All these principles was updated by the decision 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 European Culture composed of the provisions but also by the fundamental principles and values of European and international legitimacy, requires the decision to make the competent jurisdiction forum on the basis of the entire 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 Service of Experts 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 “explicitly words»– the German side to accept Greece’s relative appeal to the competent International Court of Justice in The Hague. 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 denial 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 “to” “to” “deliver lessons » Respect, on the part of other states, of international and European legality. 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. “