Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

UMD applauds Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski for raising the question of the Aegan Macedonians
Saturday, 19 July 2008

http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/355/9/

The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) and Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI) applaud the Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia, Nikola Gruevski, for his recent letter to the Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic Kostas Karamanlis.

The letter officially sheds light on the plight of Aegean Macedonians; exiled from their homes in what is now Northern Greece, and disallowed from returning to their birthplaces unless they declare themselves as ethnically Greek. This is a first concrete step by any Macedonian government to resolve this issue conclusively. For too long and for various reasons has this issue been avoided.

The response of Prime Minister Karamanlis to Prime Minister Gruevski’s letter is farcical. Athens continues to stonewall and deny these people their birthright. Karamanlis went as far as denying that a Macedonian minority in Greece exists or has ever existed!

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations all recognize the existence of a sizable Macedonian minority in Aegean Macedonia/Northern Greece. The Macedonians of Greece have their own political party (Rainbow Party Vinozhito) and many other obvious proofs (e.g., documentaries, pictures, history books). The flight of 28,000 Macedonian child refugees during the Greek Civil War is equally incontrovertible.

Even today, in 2008, the Macedonians of Northern Greece continue to experience systemic discrimination by the Greek government. In countless documented instances, they have been arrested, threatened and attacked by government officials or Neo-Nazi groups.

In fact, these Macedonians must publicly renounce their Macedonian consciousness in order to obtain favorable standing in employment, education, and other spheres of their daily lives; a condition that was clearly documented in the 1994 Human Rights Watch report entitled Denying Ethnic Identity: the Macedonians of Greece.

Furthermore, Macedonians that were exiled from Greece during the Greek Civil War in the late 1940s are still banned from returning to their birthplaces. They are routinely denied restitution of property by the Greek government, and cannot obtain Greek citizenship despite being born on in Greece.

UMD and MHRMI appeal to the Greek government to meet all obligations under EU regulations, UN conventions, and international human rights law. It is Greece’s responsibility to respect the rights of its Macedonian citizens and to honor the numerous international treaties it has signed.

These demands do not have a nationalistic agenda, but rather, are based on simple belief in the justice system, and the desire for a favorable outcome for these Macedonians. The legal and democratic principles upon which the European Union exists must be respected by all members, including the Hellenic Republic.

[insan]

Greek-Americans Working to Block U.S. Aid to Macedonia
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Greek-Americans through the American Hellenic Institute are trying to block U.S. foreign assistance to Macedonia...are you going to let them succeed?


On March 26, 2009, the American Hellenic Institute Executive Director, Nick Larigakis, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Related Programs regarding the Administration's foreign aid proposals for Fiscal Year (FY 2010) urging Congress to block aid to Macedonia. Here is the portion of his testimony concerning Macedonia:

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM): We oppose any aid that is not tied in to FYROM's commitment to negotiate in good faith with Greece to find a solution to the continuing unresolved issue between Greece and FYROM over the name of the latter. This issue, if unresolved, will contribute to potential instability within the Balkans. Stability in the Balkans is not only important for overall U.S. interests, but also because it serves the interests of every country in the Balkans. It is however, FYROM, that is the intransigent party in this regard, and not Greece. Greece is the biggest investor in FYROM and literally helps to sustain FYROM's precarious economy and reduce its large unemployment.

Provocations against Greece have increased dramatically in recent years. Since August of 2006, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski has followed a long-term policy of extreme nationalism and provocation against Greece in conflict with European values. His actions are a breach of the U.N.-brokered Interim Accord and erode efforts to build trust and good neighborly relations.

Unfortunately, the irresponsible decision by the Bush administration in November of 2004 to recognize FYROM as the "Republic of Macedonia" has contributed greatly to FYROM's intransigent and provocative stand. U.S. actions since 1992 regarding the FYROM name dispute has constituted an American foreign policy blunder which has damaged U.S. interests in the Western Balkans and was a disrespectful act toward a staunch NATO ally and supporter in the Balkans-Greece.

In an October 2008 campaign statement, Presidential Candidate Obama stated: "...[I] support the UN-led negotiations and believe that there can and should be an agreement between Skopje and Athens on a mutually-acceptable name that leads to greater stability in the Balkans."

The Congress can assist in this process by persuading FYROM to negotiate in good faith with Greece to resolve this name issue and to cease immediately irredentist propaganda against Greece. Only in this way will FYROM's aspirations to fully integrate into the EURO-Atlantic community be realized.

For the full testimony, click HERE.

Are you going to let Greek-Americans succeed? U.S. foreign assistance is very important for Macedonia's socio-economic improvement.

Send a letter to your Representative and Senators today, by clicking HERE. If you already sent a letter, did you get a response? If not, call the offices of your Representative and Senators and inquire on the status of your letter.

Help make the Macedonian-American voice in the United States stronger today!

http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/412/106/


-----------------------000000000000000000------------------------------

Poor EU member Greece. Is this the civilisation? European values?

[Lit]

UMD applauds Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski for raising the question of the Aegan Macedonians
Saturday, 19 July 2008

http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/355/9/

I am going to talk a bit about the link you provided for us above Insan. UMD stands for "United Macedonia" diaspora. They are a small diaspora organization of FYRoM slavs that seek to annex Greek Macedonia and make it join FYRoM....hence the name "United Macedonia".

Now here is their goal.

In a nut shell, they claim 51 percent of Greece (Greek Macedonia) and use the term "Aegean Macedonians" to describe the 5000 Slavs that reside in Northern Greece (mostly on Greece's boarder with FYRoM). They claim that the Slavic population is more than 5,000 but the reality is the Rainbow party that represents these Slavs obtained 5,000 votes in the last elections throughout ALL of Greece.

[insan]

UMD applauds Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski for raising the question of the Aegan Macedonians
Saturday, 19 July 2008

http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/355/9/

I am going to talk a bit about the link you provided for us above Insan. UMD stands for "United Macedonia" diaspora. They are a small diaspora organization of FYRoM slavs that seek to annex Greek Macedonia and make it join FYRoM....hence the name "United Macedonia".

Now here is their goal.

In a nut shell, they claim 51 percent of Greece (Greek Macedonia) and use the term "Aegean Macedonians" to describe the 5000 Slavs that reside in Northern Greece (mostly on Greece's boarder with FYRoM). They claim that the Slavic population is more than 5,000 but the reality is the Rainbow party that represents these Slavs obtained 5,000 votes in the last elections throughout ALL of Greece.

World full of ethnic conflicts. Where will these ethnic conflicts lead the humanity? WW3?

[insan]

Report: Greece Suppressed Macedonian Identity
Skopje | 30 April 2009 | Sinisa-Jakov Marusic


Rainbow party congressAn alleged secret Greek document, disclosing Greek plans for suppressing Macedonian identity in its territory was revealed on Wednesday, local media report.

The detailed document dating back to February 1982, is said to be issued by the then Greek National Security Service chief Dimitris Kapelaris, and was unveiled by the party of the unrecognised Macedonian minority in Greece ''Rainbow'', the local Makfax news agency reported.

According to the allegations in the document, cited by Makfax, Athens planned to set up a special team to infiltrate institutions in northern Greece, near the border of then Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia.


The team was to infiltrate all public services and to “exclude any thoughts of repatriation of the political refugees who now reside in Yugoslavia and who have been brought up with the "Macedonian idea", the "Macedonian language and culture" and activities taken for detaching Greek territories, during the period 1946-1949," the document states as quoted by Makfax.

The quoted plan envisaged the “wiping out the use of the idiom (as the Greeks state refers to the Macedonian language), in the regions near the borders” with the secret supervision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"In the public services and especially in the educational institutions the employees who will be in service have to be ignorant of the local idiom,” the document reportedly says.

Balkan Insight has not been able to verify whether the document is original.

There has been no official reaction by Greece.

The plan further envisaged the funding of Hellenic cultural associations in the northern region that would send their published materials to the large diaspora originating from this region.

“This will boost their national sentiment and they will be protected from the anti-Hellenic propaganda that is been practiced by Slavmacedonian organisations,’’ reads the paper.

The plan as quoted also encouraged Greek military personnel to marry “girls who speak the idiom” as well as stop all those who wished to study at Skopje University by extending their military service calls.


Last year Athens blocked Skopje’s NATO accession demanding that the country change its formal name Macedonia first as it implicates territorial claims toward Greece’s own northern province with that name. Greece officially named its northern province Macedonia during the 1980es and claims it has nothing to do with today's Republic of Macedonia.


The long running name dispute also added more fuel to the other open issues between the two countries.While Skopje urges Greece to admit Macedonians’ rights in that country, Athens claims that there are no Macedonians except the ones with the Hellenic origin. Athens calls the Rainbow activists "a small Slavic group".


http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/18563/

[insan]

Proposed disciplinary measures to stamp out the Macedonian minority in Greece by the National Security Service

26 April, 2009


Top secret

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE
Athens, 16 February 1982
Number of protocol 6502/7-3042….
(…..) INTRODUCTIONS
a. The Skopians' activities for the autonomy of Macedonia may be efficiently confronted mainly by wiping out the use of the idiom, in the regions near the borders. This opinion is based on the realizations that also other regions that in older times were the center of "Macedonism", like Kastoria, are not hit by the Skopian propaganda, because there the use of the idiom has been almost wiped out.

b. This element by itself would be enough to exclude any thoughts of repatriation of the P/R (political refugees) who now reside in Yugoslavia and who have been brought up with the "Macedonian idea", the "Macedonian language and culture", independently of their participation or not to the organizations SNOF, NOF and activities taken for detaching Greek territories, during the period 1946-1949.

c. As for the above it is imperative to:
1. The creation of a state institution that will depend from the Prefectures of the regions near the borders, lined with the suitable and specially trained to the "Plot against Macedonia" subject, personnel. This institution will engage itself only with this subject, with the supervision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will collaborate closely, but in secret, with the Security Authorities and all the public services (Tax office, Schools, Army, Church, etc.).
2. In the public services and especially in the educational institutions the employees who will be in service have to be ignorant of the local idiom.
3. The establishment of special enlightenment seminaries, for all the public service employees and the clergy who are in service in the sensitive region of Macedonia.
4. The establishment of motivations for the obligatory residence of the public servants and other employees, in the quarters of their service (example: payment of the rent, extra pay, etc.).
5. Establishment of Cultural Association, like "ARISTOTELIS" in Florina and economic help to them, for the realization of events and the publishing of books, newspapers, magazines, etc. and afterwards these will be sent to the Diaspora abroad who has origins from the regions of the senders. This will boost their national sentiment and they will be protected from the anti-Hellenic propaganda that is been practiced by S/M (Slavmacedonians) organizations.
6. Insertion of various obstacles (non-recognition of diplomas, postponement of military service, etc.) for the Greek students who wish to study in Skopje.
7. Marking in each village of persons who, due to their kin bounds and their personality, influence a large circle of co-villagers and with any means (even with money payments) get close to them and use them properly so they will behave as the fighters of the use of the idiom in their circle. To this direction a very positive and effective role can be that of the Youngers of the political parties, by the judgment and coordination of the Government, when a between parties agreement will be reached.
8. Recruitment in the Armed Forces, in Police Bodies, in the public services and Organisms of employees with origins from Florina region, by exception, and their obligatory location in other areas of the Country.
9. The encouragement, by the leadership of the Army, of meetings and marriages of Army officers, who are on duty there and have origins abroad, with women that speak the idiom. (…)

THE CHIEF DIMITRIS KAPELARIS ANT/GOS

Source of the original document: “SXOLIASTIS” (Political Magazine, Athens, September 1989, N.79)

-------------------------00000000000000000----------------------------

This Greece was accepted to join the EU in 1983.

[Lit]

Proposed disciplinary measures to stamp out the Macedonian minority in Greece by the National Security Service

26 April, 2009


Top secret

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE
Athens, 16 February 1982
Number of protocol 6502/7-3042….
(…..) INTRODUCTIONS
a. The Skopians' activities for the autonomy of Macedonia may be efficiently confronted mainly by wiping out the use of the idiom, in the regions near the borders. This opinion is based on the realizations that also other regions that in older times were the center of "Macedonism", like Kastoria, are not hit by the Skopian propaganda, because there the use of the idiom has been almost wiped out.

b. This element by itself would be enough to exclude any thoughts of repatriation of the P/R (political refugees) who now reside in Yugoslavia and who have been brought up with the "Macedonian idea", the "Macedonian language and culture", independently of their participation or not to the organizations SNOF, NOF and activities taken for detaching Greek territories, during the period 1946-1949.

c. As for the above it is imperative to:
1. The creation of a state institution that will depend from the Prefectures of the regions near the borders, lined with the suitable and specially trained to the "Plot against Macedonia" subject, personnel. This institution will engage itself only with this subject, with the supervision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will collaborate closely, but in secret, with the Security Authorities and all the public services (Tax office, Schools, Army, Church, etc.).
2. In the public services and especially in the educational institutions the employees who will be in service have to be ignorant of the local idiom.
3. The establishment of special enlightenment seminaries, for all the public service employees and the clergy who are in service in the sensitive region of Macedonia.
4. The establishment of motivations for the obligatory residence of the public servants and other employees, in the quarters of their service (example: payment of the rent, extra pay, etc.).
5. Establishment of Cultural Association, like "ARISTOTELIS" in Florina and economic help to them, for the realization of events and the publishing of books, newspapers, magazines, etc. and afterwards these will be sent to the Diaspora abroad who has origins from the regions of the senders. This will boost their national sentiment and they will be protected from the anti-Hellenic propaganda that is been practiced by S/M (Slavmacedonians) organizations.
6. Insertion of various obstacles (non-recognition of diplomas, postponement of military service, etc.) for the Greek students who wish to study in Skopje.
7. Marking in each village of persons who, due to their kin bounds and their personality, influence a large circle of co-villagers and with any means (even with money payments) get close to them and use them properly so they will behave as the fighters of the use of the idiom in their circle. To this direction a very positive and effective role can be that of the Youngers of the political parties, by the judgment and coordination of the Government, when a between parties agreement will be reached.
8. Recruitment in the Armed Forces, in Police Bodies, in the public services and Organisms of employees with origins from Florina region, by exception, and their obligatory location in other areas of the Country.
9. The encouragement, by the leadership of the Army, of meetings and marriages of Army officers, who are on duty there and have origins abroad, with women that speak the idiom. (…)

THE CHIEF DIMITRIS KAPELARIS ANT/GOS

Source of the original document: “SXOLIASTIS” (Political Magazine, Athens, September 1989, N.79)

-------------------------00000000000000000----------------------------

This Greece was accepted to join the EU in 1983.

Come on. You cant be that shocked at this rubbish you are posting above. All you are doing is reproducing this garbage from FYRoM forums. Prove this "top secret" article is real by providing a link.

[insan]

Proposed disciplinary measures to stamp out the Macedonian minority in Greece by the National Security Service

26 April, 2009


Top secret

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE
Athens, 16 February 1982
Number of protocol 6502/7-3042….
(…..) INTRODUCTIONS
a. The Skopians' activities for the autonomy of Macedonia may be efficiently confronted mainly by wiping out the use of the idiom, in the regions near the borders. This opinion is based on the realizations that also other regions that in older times were the center of "Macedonism", like Kastoria, are not hit by the Skopian propaganda, because there the use of the idiom has been almost wiped out.

b. This element by itself would be enough to exclude any thoughts of repatriation of the P/R (political refugees) who now reside in Yugoslavia and who have been brought up with the "Macedonian idea", the "Macedonian language and culture", independently of their participation or not to the organizations SNOF, NOF and activities taken for detaching Greek territories, during the period 1946-1949.

c. As for the above it is imperative to:
1. The creation of a state institution that will depend from the Prefectures of the regions near the borders, lined with the suitable and specially trained to the "Plot against Macedonia" subject, personnel. This institution will engage itself only with this subject, with the supervision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will collaborate closely, but in secret, with the Security Authorities and all the public services (Tax office, Schools, Army, Church, etc.).
2. In the public services and especially in the educational institutions the employees who will be in service have to be ignorant of the local idiom.
3. The establishment of special enlightenment seminaries, for all the public service employees and the clergy who are in service in the sensitive region of Macedonia.
4. The establishment of motivations for the obligatory residence of the public servants and other employees, in the quarters of their service (example: payment of the rent, extra pay, etc.).
5. Establishment of Cultural Association, like "ARISTOTELIS" in Florina and economic help to them, for the realization of events and the publishing of books, newspapers, magazines, etc. and afterwards these will be sent to the Diaspora abroad who has origins from the regions of the senders. This will boost their national sentiment and they will be protected from the anti-Hellenic propaganda that is been practiced by S/M (Slavmacedonians) organizations.
6. Insertion of various obstacles (non-recognition of diplomas, postponement of military service, etc.) for the Greek students who wish to study in Skopje.
7. Marking in each village of persons who, due to their kin bounds and their personality, influence a large circle of co-villagers and with any means (even with money payments) get close to them and use them properly so they will behave as the fighters of the use of the idiom in their circle. To this direction a very positive and effective role can be that of the Youngers of the political parties, by the judgment and coordination of the Government, when a between parties agreement will be reached.
8. Recruitment in the Armed Forces, in Police Bodies, in the public services and Organisms of employees with origins from Florina region, by exception, and their obligatory location in other areas of the Country.
9. The encouragement, by the leadership of the Army, of meetings and marriages of Army officers, who are on duty there and have origins abroad, with women that speak the idiom. (…)

THE CHIEF DIMITRIS KAPELARIS ANT/GOS

Source of the original document: “SXOLIASTIS” (Political Magazine, Athens, September 1989, N.79)

-------------------------00000000000000000----------------------------

This Greece was accepted to join the EU in 1983.

Come on. You cant be that shocked at this rubbish you are posting above. All you are doing is reproducing this garbage from FYRoM forums. Prove this "top secret" article is real by providing a link.

http://www.florina.org/news/2009/april26_e.asp

[insan]

The Greek Parliament in 2000 printed a map under the heading “Historical Map of Greece” where part of Turkish territory is presented as being part of the “unitary Greek world”. Specifically, the territory of Asia Minor around Izmir, eastern Thrace, the islands of Imvros and Tenedos are presented as Greek territories.

The title of the map is “Historical Map of Greece” and the legend is headed “The Unification of Greece”. In purple are marked the territories which “united” with the Greek state in 1920 and below, the Treaty of Sevres is mentioned, which partly satisfied the needs of the Greek “Great Idea” (Megali Idea). The very mention of “unification” serves to highlight the “unity” and “indivisibility” of Greek lands, which include the marked purple territories. Of course the nationalists and crypto-nationalists in our country can justify themselves by claiming that the map is not expansionist, but rather represents the real situation on the ground following the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. Well, a similar argumentation can be used by every Macedonian nationalist claiming the same for the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 in which the well-known map with the division of the Macedonian lands between three states is not expansionist propaganda but rather represents the realistic situation at the actual time. So in actual fact, what is the difference between the title “Historical Map of Greece” (1920) from the title “Historical Map of Macedonia” (1913). Or what is the difference between a title that reads “The Division of Macedonia” and one that states “The Unification of Greece”?

http://www.florina.org/news/2007/july06_e.asp

[insan]

23 Years in EU but Greece still violates and denies the rights of minorities.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1409 ... ged=FFC679



1. The present Report follows a visit to Greece by the Commissioner for Human Rights (the Commissioner) from 8 to 10 December 2008,1 in the course of which he held consultations with a number of state authorities, including Mr Aristides Agathokles, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Commissioner also traveled to Alexandroupolis (Evros department, north-eastern Greece) where he met Mr Osman Ahmet Hatzi, Member of Parliament, Mr Ilhan Ahmed, former Member of Parliament and Mr Mustafa Mustafa, former Member of Parliament. Before his visit the Commissioner received a memorandum from representatives of the political party ‘European Free Alliance – Rainbow’.

2. The Commissioner sincerely wishes to thank the Greek authorities in Strasbourg, the Evros department and Athens for the assistance that they provided in facilitating the independent and effective performance of his visit.

3. Greece, one of the oldest member states of the Council of Europe, has ratified and is bound by the vast majority of the major international and European human rights instruments. Greece also signed in 1997 the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

4. The Commissioner, in his capacity as an independent and impartial institution of the Council of Europe, wishes to continue his sincere and constructive dialogue with the Greek authorities and to assist them in their efforts to further enhance the effective protection of the Council of Europe human rights standards.

5. The protection and promotion of the human rights of non-dominant, minority groups in Europe has always been at the heart of the Commissioner’s work. This is because European history has indeed shown that the protection of minorities is essential to stability, democratic security and peace in this continent. Protection afforded by states to non-dominant groups is in fact a litmus test for the former’s effective observance of and respect for the fundamental human rights principles that should flourish in every pluralist, democratic society.

6. In the present Report, after an overview of the main features of minorities in Greece (section II), the Commissioner would like to focus on the following major issues: minorities and the right to freedom of association (section III); protection of minority members affected by the application of former Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code (section IV); Muftis and application of the Sharia Law in Greece (section V), followed by conclusions and recommendations (section VI).

II. Main features of minorities in Greece

7. The Commissioner notes that the Greek authorities recognise the existence of only one minority on Greek territory, the ‘Muslim’ one in western Thrace (north-eastern Greece), by virtue of the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 24 July 1923.2 This minority group (and the ‘Greek inhabitants of Constantinople’) had been expressly excluded from the compulsory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey under the Lausanne Convention of 30 January 1923.3 According to the authorities, it now ‘numbers around 100 000 persons and consists of three distinct groups, whose members are of Turkish, Pomak or Roma origin’4, each representing respectively 50%, 35% and 15% of this minority population.5

8. At the same time, the Greek authorities have affirmed that Greece ‘subscribes to the right of each person to self-identification [and that] the members of the Muslim minority in Thrace are free to declare their origin, speak their language, exercise their religion and observe their particular customs and traditions’.6 The Commissioner has noted that ‘persons of Roma origin’ outside Thrace are not considered by the Greek authorities as members of a minority but of a ‘vulnerable social group’.7

9. The Commissioner has observed that despite the non recognition of any other national or linguistic minority, Greek authorities have acknowledged that in northern Greece there exist ‘a small number of persons who… use, without restrictions, in addition to the Greek language, Slavic oral idioms, confined to family or colloquial use’. According to the authorities, this ‘Slav-oriented group of Greek citizens in [the Greek region of] Macedonia have been freely participating with their own political party in parliamentary elections in Greece’.8 In fact, in the 2004 elections for the European Parliament this party (‘European Free Alliance – Rainbow’, based in the town of Florina as from 19959) received 6 176 votes, that is a national percentage of 0,10%.10

10. The Commissioner takes note of the serious concerns which have been expressed by monitoring bodies of both the Council of Europe and the United Nations about the policy and practice followed so far by Greek authorities vis-à-vis minorities.

11. In particular, in its 2004 Third Report on Greece, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) commented that ‘persons wishing to express their Macedonian, Turkish or other identity incur the hostility of the population. They are targets of prejudices and stereotypes, and sometimes face discrimination, especially in the labour market’11.

12. As regards UN monitoring organs, in 2004 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its Concluding Observations, after having expressed its concern ‘that there is only one officially recognized minority in Greece, whereas there are other ethnic groups seeking that status’, urged Greece ‘to reconsider its position with regard to the recognition of other ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities which may exist within its territory in accordance with recognized international standards’.12

13. One year later, the UN Human Rights Committee noted ‘with concern the apparent unwillingness of the [Greek] Government to allow any private groups or associations to use associational names that include the appellation "Turk" or "Macedonian", based upon the State party's assertion that there are no ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities in Greece other than the Muslims in Thrace. The Committee note[d] that individuals belonging to such minorities have a right under the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] to the enjoyment of their own culture, the profession and practice of their own religion, and the use of their own language in community with other members of their group (art. 27)’.13

III. Minorities and the right to freedom of association

14. In its latest Report on Greece, ECRI deplored the fact that, five years after the 1998 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the relevant case of Sidiropoulos and others,14 the ‘Home of Macedonian Civilisation’, a non-profit-making association that a number of Greek nationals who claimed to be of Macedonian ethnic origin aimed to establish in the town of Florina, had not been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Greek Civil Code.15 The domestic courts’ refusal to allow registration of this association had been grounded, inter alia, in a perceived ‘intention on the part of the [above association’s] founders to undermine Greek territorial integrity’ and found that ‘the promotion of the idea that there is a Macedonian minority in Greece…is contrary to the country’s national interest and consequently contrary to law’.16

15. The Commissioner has been informed that the above association’s legal personality is still not recognized, even though the Greek government submitted to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in 2000, before the conclusion by the Committee of the examination of this case under ex Article 54 (now Article 46, paragraph 2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that ‘considering the direct effect today given to judgments of the European Court in Greek law…the Greek courts [would] not fail to prevent the kind of judicial error that was at the origin of the violation found in this case’.17 ECRI, having noted that ‘representatives of the Macedonian community have asked the authorities to recognize their right to self-identification, as well as the existence of a Macedonian national minority’, inter alia, encouraged the authorities ‘to take further steps toward the recognition of the freedom of association and expression of members of the Macedonian and Turkish communities’ in Greece.18

16. The Commissioner has taken note with particular concern that the Greek authorities’ refusal to recognise the existence of any other kind of minority apart from the ‘Muslim’ one has led in fact to a number of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, especially concerning minority members’ right to freedom of association, as provided for by Article 11 of the European Convention.

17. One such case has been that of Bekir-Ousta and others19 in which the Court found unanimously against Greece in 2007. This case concerns the competent courts’ refusal to allow the registration of the Muslim minority applicants’ association that they decided to form in Evros in 1995, under the name ‘Association of the minority youth of the Evros Department’, on the ground that the applicants intended in fact, through this association, to promote the idea that an ethnic, as contrasted to a religious, minority existed in Thrace. This, according to the domestic courts, risked creating confusion in the public as to the origin of the members of this association. Having noted that the Greek Constitution and the civil code in fact do not allow the domestic courts to proceed to a preventive control for the establishment of non-profit-making associations, the European Court of Human Rights found unanimously that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association, since there was no ‘pressing social need’ that would have made the non-registration of the above association necessary in a democratic society.

18. The Court, with a similar reasoning, found anew unanimously against Greece in 2008 in the case of Emin and others v Greece,20 which concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to allow the registration of the ‘Cultural Association of Turkish Women of the Prefecture of Rodopi’ that the applicants wished to create in 2001. The national courts deemed that this registration would be against the public order on the ground that the title of the association would create the impression that there exists in Greece a Turkish (national) minority as contrasted to the religious one provided for by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. To date, the Commissioner has not been informed of any measures by the Greek authorities aimed at the registration of the above associations.

19. Of further concern to the Commissioner has been a fourth case that led in 2008 to a new judgment against Greece by the European Court of Human Rights (case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others)21. It concerns the dissolution by a domestic court, upon request by the Prefect of Xanthi, of the applicant association which was entitled ‘Turkish Association of Xanthi’ and aimed, inter alia, at promoting the culture of the ‘Turks of western Thrace’ and contributing to propagating the cultural, social and religious reforms that took place in Turkey following the regime change by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.22 It is noted that the members of this association are part of the officially recognised ‘Muslim’ minority, of Turkish ethnic origin, and that this association had been registered and operating in Greece under this name since 1936, and under another name, ‘House of the Turkish youth in Xanthi’ between 1927 and 1936.

20. The Court in this case found unanimously another violation by Greece of Article 11 of the European Convention. It judged as unnecessary in a democratic society the ‘radical measure’ of dissolution of the above minority association by the domestic courts on the ground, inter alia, that the term ‘Turkish’ in the title and in the memoranda of the above non-profit association (promoting the idea of existence of an ethnic, not a religious minority in line with the Lausanne Treaty) and the reference to the ideals of Kemal Atatürk ran against public order. The Court, having noted that the applicant association had never in fact appealed to violence, underlined that no matter how shocking and unacceptable may seem to be for the authorities certain points of view or terms used by the association or its members, these should not automatically be viewed as a threat to the public order or the country’s territorial integrity, since the essence of democracy consists in fact in its capacity to solve problems through an open debate.23 The Commissioner has not been informed to date of any measures by the Greek authorities aimed at reregistering the above association.

IV. Protection of minority members affected by the application of former Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code

21. Former Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code (GNC, Legislative Decree (Law) 3370/1955)24 was a provision that was applied from 1955 until 1998. It provided for the denationalisation of ‘citizens of different [non-Greek] descent’ (‘alloyenis’, as opposed to ‘omoyenis’, that is, ‘of the same [Greek] descent’) who left Greece ‘with no intent to return’.

22. According to former Article 19 GNC ‘a citizen of non-Greek descent [‘alloyenis’] who leaves the Greek territory with no intent to return may be declared to be a person who has lost the Greek nationality’. In the framework of Article 19 a Greek citizen of non-Greek descent (‘alloyenis’) meant an individual with Greek nationality who did not ‘originate from Greeks, had no Greek consciousness and did not behave as a Greek [and consequently] it may be concluded that their bond with the Greek nation is completely loose and fragile’.25

23. It has been widely accepted that the former Article 19 GNC was in contravention of, inter alia, Article 12, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by Greece by Law 2462/1997) which provides that ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country’, as well as to Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (this Protocol has not as yet been ratified by Greece) which provides that ‘No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national’.26

24. As a consequence of the above provision, from 1955 to 1998 there were approximately 60 000 Greek citizens, including minors, who lost their nationality.27 The majority of these persons have been of Turkish ethnic origin.

25. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has noted that Greece has not taken measures that would lead to the reparation of ‘the serious consequences that arose from the deprivation of citizenship on the basis of Article 19. In particular, the repeal of Article 19 does not have a retroactive effect.28 Denationalised persons who have remained in Greece (estimated at 200 persons)29 and wish to recover their Greek nationality have had to go through the normal naturalization process applicable to aliens, a process that has been described as ‘long, expensive and uncertain as regards the outcome, and humiliating for persons who have wrongly lost their citizenship’.30 During the discussions that the Commissioner had during his visit to Greece with the aforementioned minority members in Thrace the lack of any ‘moral compensation’ (satisfaction) so far to the forced denationalization victims was particularly brought to his attention.

26. The Commissioner has been especially concerned at reports according to which the remaining stateless persons in Greece, most of them middle- and old-aged and of limited financial means, often encounter difficulties in benefiting particularly from health services when in need thereof. The Commissioner has noted that in 2006 the Greek National Commission for Human Rights called upon the Greek state to urgently provide for coverage of all these particularly vulnerable persons under the state health system.31

27. According to the Greek government, ‘[t]he vast majority of persons deprived of their citizenship by virtue of Article 19 are already foreign citizens and reside outside the Greek territory. The general provisions of the Citizenship Code on the naturalization of foreign citizens may be applicable to them. [The]…“stateless” Muslims, who reside in Thrace…have been provided with special Identity Cards, in accordance with the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons… At the same time, the Ministry of Interior has issued instructions to Local Authorities for the speeding up of the procedure for the naturalization of these persons.32 It is expected that soon Greek citizenship will be granted to the abovementioned stateless persons, who are permanent residents of Greece’.33 The Commissioner notes with satisfaction that during his conversation with the Secretary General of the Foreign Ministry, Mr Agathokles, on 10 December 2008, the latter confirmed the Greek government’s determination to proceed promptly to the restoration of the nationality of the remaining stateless persons who now reside in Greece.

V. Muftis and application of the Sharia Law in Greece

28. The three, currently functioning, Muftis (religious officials and legal experts in the Sharia Law) in Thrace (in the towns of Xanthi, Komotini and Didimoticho) have the status of Greek civil servants. The Muftis are Greek Muslims, graduates of a University-level Islamic school of theology, and appointed by decision of the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs. In accordance with, inter alia, Law 1920/1991 on Muftis, which echoes in effect early 20th century treaties concluded between Greece and the Ottoman Empire/Turkey, a Mufti has, in addition to his role as a Muslim legal expert, the exceptional competence to adjudicate, applying the Sharia Law, among Greek Muslim citizens residing in their region upon cases relating to, inter alia, marriage, divorce, alimony, guardianship and inheritance. It is to be noted that Greek Muslims residing on the Dodecanese islands are not subject to Sharia Law but to Greek civil law. The Commissioner notes that in 2006 the Greek National Commission for Human Rights proposed the adoption of legislation aimed, inter alia, at abolishing the public law personality of Muftis and at restricting their competence to strictly spritirual tasks.34

29. The Commissioner has observed that the continuing practice of appointment of the Muftis by the Greek state, excluding their direct election by members of the Muslim minority, has caused in the past and continues to cause deep disappointment and reactions by members of the Muslim minority. In this context, the Commissioner recalls a number of judgments against Greece by the European Court of Human Rights concerning prosecutions for having ‘usurped the functions of a minister of a ‘known religion’’, against an elected Mufti issuing and signing messages to the Muslims attending his prayers in Thrace, while the Greek state had appointed another Mufti. In its judgment in the case of Agga v Greece (N° 2) (17/10/2002) (concerning the Mufti post at Xanthi) the Court had found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of religion) on account of the above-mentioned prosecution. The supervision of execution of this and the similar, earlier case of Serif was concluded by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in 2005 following the adoption by Greece of individual as well as of general measures to prevent a similar violation of the Convention.

30. Nonetheless, two very similar judgments against Greece were rendered by the Court on 13 July 2006 (Agga N° 3; Agga N° 4),35 finding anew, unanimously, violations of Article 9 of the Convention due to other prosecutions against the same applicant for the same reasons. The Court noted, as in the 2002 Agga N° 2 case, that ‘the domestic courts that convicted the applicant did not mention in their decisions any specific acts by the applicant with a view to producing legal effects…[but they convicted him] on the mere ground that he had issued messages of religious content and that he had signed them as the Mufti of Xanthi’.36 Hence, the convictions were not justified by a ‘pressing social need’, provided for by the exclusion clause of Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

31. The Commissioner has additionally been informed of the serious concerns that have been expressed notably by the Greek National Commission for Human Rights with regard to a number of Muslims’ weddings by proxy (without the clear and express consent of the women concerned in most cases, including minors), which are allowed by the Sharia Law and in the past, at least until 2003, have been officiated by a Mufti and subsequently recorded in the state public records.37 The National Commission deemed that this practice raised serious issues of compatibility of the above practice with the Greek Constitution that protects, inter alia, human dignity and the free development of one’s personality, as well as with provisions of international human rights treaties ratified by Greece, such as Article 23, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that proscribes marriages without the ‘free and full consent of the intending spouses’.38

32. Even more grave concerns were expressed in 2005 by, among others, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights about the wedding of a Muslim minor girl of 11 years of age. Even though under Sharia Law the minimum age of marriage is twelve years, in that case the Mufti reportedly officiated the above wedding exceptionally ‘in order to protect the girl’s interests’.39

33. The Commissioner has noted that in 2007 the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) expressed its concern about ‘the non-application of the general law of Greece to the Muslim minority on matters of marriage and inheritance’, thus leading ‘to discrimination against Muslim women, in contravention of the Greek Constitution and article 16 of the [Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women]. The Committee note[d] with concern the continuing phenomenon of early marriage and polygamy in the Muslim community notwithstanding the fact that they are in conflict with the Greek constitutional order and the [above] Convention’.40

34. The Commissioner is aware that the decision to proceed to the application of Sharia Law in family and inheritance law matters may be taken by members of the Muslim minority in Thrace, who have, in principle, the right to choose between Greek civil law and Sharia Law. It is to be noted, however, that exceptions occur in matters relating to inheritance law where the Sharia Law is strictly applied.41 The Commissioner is also informed that Sharia Law should be implemented, as a matter of principle, to the extent that its rules are not in conflict with the Greek statutory and constitutional order. In fact, Law 1920/1991 (on Muftis) provides that the domestic courts, in cases of dispute, shall not enforce decisions of the Muftis which are contrary to the Greek Constitution. A recent, legal expert report, however, has cast very serious doubts over and raised grave concerns about the effectiveness of the review and control of the Mufti judicial decisions which is carried out by domestic civil courts.42

35. The Commissioner shares the comments of the above competent national and international human rights institutions whose reports have clearly indicated that the Sharia Law-related practice as outlined above, based notably on early 20th century treaties concluded between Greece and the Ottoman Empire and later Turkey, raises serious issues of compatibility with the undertakings of Greece following the ratification of the post-1948, core international and European human rights treaties, especially those relating to the human rights of the child and of women, which should, in any case, be effectively applied and prevail.

36. On many occasions during the discussion that the Commissioner held in Alexandroupolis with the aforementioned members of the Muslim minority the wish for a prevalence of and application of the ‘European standards’ to the Muslim minority members was stressed. In these discussions, the Commissioner was given the impression that there is a large part of the Muslim minority members who do not wish to be subject, even with the right to choose, to Sharia Law and would very much welcome its abolition in Greece. At the same time, such a development could well pave the way towards a possible direct election of a Mufti by members of the Muslim minority, a prospect that appears also to be wished for by the majority of this minority.

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

37. The Commissioner is aware of the complexity of the minority questions that arise naturally in ‘nation states’, especially those of south-east Europe, a region where various civilisations have mixed and thrived in turbulent historical contexts. On many occasions, the emerged states there have not managed to view social pluralism as a valuable asset and source of development for all members of their societies. History has indeed shaped all nation states’ past and present. It should not however confine or hamper their future development.

38. The Commissioner believes strongly that effective protection by states of minority groups on their territories is a necessary condition for the establishment and preservation of domestic social cohesion and international peaceful relations and cooperation of all Council of Europe member states, as provided by the Council of Europe Statute.

39. The Commissioner wishes to commend and encourage further action by the Greek authorities for enhancing the human rights of minorities, such as that on ‘education of Muslim children’ in Thrace, the existence of a special quota of 0.5% for entry into higher education of Muslim minority students and the introduction in 2006 of teaching of the Turkish language as a second foreign language in secondary education in Thrace.

40. Nonetheless, the Commissioner remains deeply concerned about the persistent denial by Greek authorities of the existence on Greece’s territory of minorities other than the tripartite ‘Muslim’ one in western Thrace, despite the recommendations made so far notably by ECRI, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee.

41. The Commissioner wishes to underline in this context that any obligations that may arise out of the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty, or any other early 20th century treaty, should be viewed and interpreted in full and effective compliance with the subsequent obligations undertaken by the ratification of European and international human rights instruments.

42. The Commissioner wishes to recall that freedom of ethnic self-identification is a major principle in which democratic pluralistic societies should be grounded and should be effectively applied to all minority groups, be they national, religious or linguistic.43

43. The Commissioner notes that Greece, like all other Council of Europe member states, is an inherently pluralistic society. The existence in it of minority groups, be they ‘national’, ‘religious’ or ‘linguistic’, should be considered as a major factor, not of division, but of enrichment for the Greek society. The Commissioner would like to urge the Greek authorities to show greater receptiveness to diversity in their society and take appropriate measures that would allow members of the existing, numerically small, minority groups to be effectively self-identified and express their identities.

44. The existence of tensions among members and groups of a democratic society, such as that of Greece, is an inherent element of its pluralism. The answer to tensions, though, should not be the adoption of repressive measures. As noted by the European Court of Human Rights, ‘[t]he role of the authorities is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other’.44 Democracy and social cohesion are nurtured by dialogue and the promotion of the human rights principles to which Council of Europe member states should effectively adhere.

45. Tolerance and open, sincere dialogue between authorities and all minority groups should be nurtured and promoted as widely as possible by the national, as well as the regional and local authorities. In this regard, the Commissioner reiterates his view that the creation by the Greek government of a national human rights action plan would be highly beneficial,45 one in which the protection of minorities should be integrated and based notably on the principles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), which was signed by Greece on 22 September 1997.

46. In this context, the Commissioner calls upon the Greek government to create a consultative mechanism, at national, regional and local levels, which would ensure an institutionalised, open, sincere and continuous dialogue with representatives of different minorities and/or representatives of individual minority groups. These consultative bodies should have a clear legal status and be inclusive and representative.46

47. The Commissioner recalls the similar recommendation made by the previous Commissioner in his 2002 and 2006 reports on Greece, and urges once again the Greek authorities to proceed, as soon as possible, to the ratification by Greece of the FCNM and accession to the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages47. The Commissioner is in no doubt that the incorporation of these important Council of Europe treaties will be a major step towards the advancement of minority protection in Greece and will set an example.

48. As regards in particular freedom of association, the great importance for democracy of the freedom of establishment and functioning of associations ‘seeking an ethnic identity or asserting a minority consciousness’ has been emphasised by the European Court of Human Rights.48

49. The Commissioner recalls the European Court of Human Rights’ guiding principles, according to which ‘[t]he harmonious interaction of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social cohesion. It is only natural that, where a civil society functions in a healthy manner, the participation of citizens in the democratic process is to a large extent achieved through belonging to associations in which they may integrate with each other and pursue common objectives collectively… freedom of association is particularly important for persons belonging to minorities, including national and ethnic minorities… Indeed, forming an association in order to express and promote its identity may be instrumental in helping a minority to preserve and uphold its rights’.49

50. Needless to say that there exists always a possibility for states to impose restrictions upon the right to freedom of association, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it has to be stressed, in the words of the Court, that this ‘power must be used sparingly, as exceptions to the rule of freedom of association are to be construed strictly and only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on that freedom’.50

51. In addition, it is recalled that under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was ratified by Greece on 5 May 1997, in all states parties where ‘ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist’, members of such minorities may not be denied the right, ‘in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language’.

52. In this regard, it is to be noted that the UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that under the above provision of the ICCPR a state party ‘is under an obligation to ensure that the existence and the exercise of [the above right] are protected against their denial or violation’. The UN Human Rights Committee has stressed that ‘[a]lthough the rights protected under article 27 are individual rights, they depend in turn on the ability of the minority group to maintain its culture, language or religion. Accordingly, positive measures by States may also be necessary to protect the identity of a minority and the rights of its members to enjoy and develop their culture and language and to practise their religion, in community with the other members of the group’.51 Similar provisions are found in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) (see e.g. Article 5),52 which was signed by Greece on 22 September 1997 but has not as yet been ratified.

53. Indeed, the right to freedom of association is one of the fundamental prerequisites for the harmonious functioning of European democratic societies which are characterised by inherent pluralism that, in turn, should always be accompanied by tolerance and broadmindedness.53 The essential contribution made by non-profit-making associations, such as non-governmental organisations, to the development and realisation of democracy and human rights was recently highlighted also by the Committee of Ministers in its Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe.54

54. The Commissioner follows closely and remains concerned by the over-restrictive practice of Greek courts which by having proceeded to a preventive, in effect, control of certain applicant minority associations have refused to register them in accordance with the Civil Code, even though Article 12 of the Greek Constitution expressly proscribes the imposition of ‘prior authorisation’ on the formation of non-profit-making unions and associations.

55. Of even greater concern has been the radical measure of the dissolution of the minority association ‘Turkish Union of Xanthi’, even though this had been registered and operated in Greece under this name since 1936.

56. The Commissioner remains deeply concerned about all the aforementioned applications lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and the latter’s subsequent, unanimous judgments against Greece concerning restrictions of minority members’ freedom of association, which are unnecessary in a democratic society. All these cases have further strained the Court’s long overburdened docket, instead of having being promptly resolved at national level, in accordance with the Court’s long-established case law.

57. The Commissioner calls upon the Greek authorities to adopt urgently all necessary measures in order to make possible the operation of all minority associations, in full alignment with the European Convention on Human Rights, a ratified treaty that enjoys a supra-statutory status under Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Greek Constitution.

58. As regards the persons who were deprived of Greek nationality under former Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code and remain in Greece, the Commissioner welcomes the efforts made by the Greek authorities and urges them to proceed to the immediate restoration of their nationality. Particular care should also be provided by the competent authorities to any of these persons who are elderly and/or with limited financial resources to cover welfare and medical services of which they are in need. As for the denationalised persons who have remained abroad and are not willing to return, the Commissioner calls upon the authorities to consider the possibility of providing them, or their descendants, with satisfaction, in accordance with the general principles of international law.

59. In this context, the Commissioner calls upon the Greek authorities to proceed promptly to the ratification of the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, which was signed on 6 November 1997, the 1963 Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

60. With regard to the appointed Muftis and their application of the Sharia Law, the Commissioner recommends that Greece institutionalise an open, sincere and continuous dialogue with representatives of the Muslim minority on all matters affecting their everyday life and human rights. Any solutions to the issues raised in the present Report should be reached following consultations with the minority concerned and in accordance with the wish of the majority of its members.

61. The Commissioner, however, wishes to note that he is favourably positioned towards the withdrawal of the judicial competence from Muftis, given the serious, aforementioned issues of compatibility of this practice with international and European human rights standards, and towards the subsequent, direct election of the Muftis (solely as Sharia Law experts) by the members of the Muslim minority, in conformity with Article 15 and the standards set by the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.55 In the meantime, the Greek authorities are urged to take promptly all necessary measures for strengthening the substantive review and control by domestic courts of the Muftis’ judicial decisions so that they are effectively and fully in line with the standards of international and European human rights law.

62. Finally, the Commissioner wishes to stress that he will continue to follow closely relevant developments and intends to take all necessary measures, in accordance with his mandate as an independent and impartial institution of the Council of Europe, in order to promote the effective implementation of the Council of Europe standards relating to minority and human rights protection. The Commissioner stands ready to continue a sincere, constructive dialogue with and assist the Greek authorities in their efforts to remedy the shortcomings that were outlined in the present Report.