Prokopis Pavlopoulos made a loud intervention on the occasion of the wiretapping case. The former President of the Republic, speaking in Kommeno, Arta, during the Memorial Ceremony of the 317 Martyrs Heroes of Kommeno, victims of Nazi atrocities during the criminal raid of 16 August 1943, did not fail to mention the interceptions at the end of his speech, clarifying that the political responsibility lies solely with the government.
«The political responsibility of those who exercise the power entrusted to them on the basis of the popular verdict is, by nature and by definition, objective. So the holders of this power must assume in full the political responsibility which is theirs, and there can be no question of transferring it in any way to others.’, he said.
«In simple words the political «leaders» to justify their aforementioned democratic legitimacy cannot be content with the simple administration of power in the exercise of their functions, but must emerge, with courage and consistency and without calculating the so-called ’political cost“, uncompromising defenders of Representative Democracy and its institutions.”, stressed President Pavlopoulos.
More specifically, he pointed out, among others, the following:
«It is with feelings of sacred emotion that I am with you today - and as your Honorary Fellow - for the second time, after my visit in my capacity as President of the Republic, on 16 August 2017, in order to honour, together, the Sacred Memory of the 317 Martyrs Heroes of Commune, on 16 August 1943.
A. Within this framework of Historical Memory - and far from any logic of retaliation, which is completely alien to us, the Greeks - we also include Greece's claims regarding the occupation loan and general reparations for the victims and material destruction of the Nazi atrocities. This is because the Justice of History, in order for the message ’Never Forget, Never Again« to be put into practice, requires the perpetrators to complete their »apology« by giving Greece what rightfully belongs to it. This means that if the Federal Republic of Germany means and fully recognises its responsibilities for its Nazi past, it must immediately do to Greece what is required by the historical path of the European Union and our common European civilisation, especially our common European legal civilisation. And in this regard I recall our basic positions - which are also our National Positions, since the crimes of Nazi atrocity against Greece and the Greek People were committed - with regard to the above-mentioned claims. It should be made clear from the outset that we are dealing with two completely different, from a legal point of view, issues. Namely:
B. First, with the occupation loan to Germany, which was compulsorily concluded - more correctly in a coercive and blackmailing way - between the occupying Greek government and Germany, for the maintenance of the occupation troops. Here, then, from a legal point of view, it is a matter of contractual guilt. Therefore, the corresponding contractual claim of Greece is of inter-contractual - and not tortious - origin. There is therefore no question of either limitation or waiver for this claim. There is only a question of its overall calculation to date. It should be noted that the Greek position becomes legally all the stronger in so far as the repayment of the loan had already begun during the occupation period.
C. And, secondly, compensation for human casualties and material damage in Greece by the occupying troops. The Greek legal basis for the compensation claims against Germany is firmly based mainly on the provisions of Article 3 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, which codified the provisions of the Law of War.
D. It is clear from what has been said that our above-mentioned claims, which we have never and in no way waived, are always legally active - which means that there is no question of limitation - and legally enforceable.
1. And our common European Legal Culture, as part of our common European Culture in general, which is composed of the provisions and the fundamental principles and values of European and international law, requires the relevant decision to be taken by a competent judicial forum, based on the whole of the applicable international law in this case. This position is literally national and, consequently, non-negotiable. All the more so when this position is now catalytically reinforced by the recent opinion (2019) of the Federal Expert Service of the German Parliament (Bundestag). Which on the one hand acknowledges that there is no question of waiver or limitation of claims in Greece. And, on the other hand, it urges, «expressis verbis», the German side to accept an appeal by Greece and Germany to the competent International Court of Justice in The Hague. And in this respect, the rejection of 18.10.2019 of the fully documented express declaration of Greece, made in June of the same year, and subsequent, direct or indirect rejections, regarding the prospect of an appeal to a competent jurisdictional forum for the final resolution of the relevant dispute regarding Greece's claims concerning the occupation loan and German reparations, can only cause concern. The aforementioned refusal of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, ignoring all the aforementioned, fully documented, legal arguments, appears to be completely unjustified, given that it is contrary to both European and international legality.
2. Under these circumstances, it is certain that with the aforementioned behaviour the Federal Republic of Germany is undermining, «from within», its credibility and prestige at the European and international level. It therefore goes without saying that Greece does not accept, nor will it accept, in any way, this denial. Which means that it will come back in this respect, giving even greater scope and emphasis to its legal - and not only legal - arguments. This attitude on the part of Greece is all the more imperative in view of the basic respect for the sacred memory of the tragic victims of the tragedy of Kommenos.
E. I have chosen to conclude my speech by recalling the timeless value of Representative Democracy and our fundamental duty to defend it, all of us, without exception, in practice and without ceasing. For the past has taught us that Representative Democracy and its institutions are «fragile» assets and that constant vigilance is required to ensure their effective protection. It is in this direction that the saying of Heraclitus is of key importance, and it is also of key importance today: «Fighting for the people over the law is a good thing». In this respect, it is also our fundamental duty to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution as a whole are strictly observed, especially those provisions which guarantee the unimpeded exercise of fundamental human rights. Therefore, experiencing today in our Land the dangers that lurk due to the violation of some of these Rights, and in particular the violation of the right to confidentiality of communications under Article 19 of the Constitution, to the detriment of citizens and even institutional actors in our political and political life, I feel obliged to point out the following: The political responsibility of those who exercise the power entrusted to them by popular vote is, by nature and by definition, objective. Therefore, the bearers of this power must assume their full political responsibility, and it is inconceivable that it should be transferred in any way to others. In simple words, in order to justify their aforementioned democratic legitimacy, political ’leaders’ cannot be content with the mere management of power in the exercise of their responsibilities, but must emerge, with courage and consistency and without calculating the so-called ’political cost’, as uncompromising defenders of Representative Democracy and its institutions.«
