What Is The Point Of The Gr Family?

[sky]

Do they do charity work like other RF's? and i know some of the other members of the family live in london and other parts of europe but does anone live in greece?

[chanel]

The Royal Family does NOT live in Greece, as much as they would love to.... They live all over the globe (sort of): King Constantine/Queen Anne-Marie and their three younger children (Nickolaos, Theodora, and Pillippios) live in London. Crown Prince and Princess Pavlos used to live in the USA and they moved to London late last year. Princess Alexia lives in Spain with her family (husband and two daughters). The family does not live in Greece because of a coup in 1967? that caused them to escape from Greece. They lived in Denmark for sometime after then, and soon had to move to London because of the controversy surrounding the family and its point of view with the Danish. They are on Danish passports (or Enligh, I am not sure), which allowed them to enter Greece, BUT the Greek government would not allow it until now when the court rulling went through.

In order for HM and family to return to Greece for good, he would have to give up his throne and title and remain as a citizen. I honestly do not think that they will ever do that seeing as they have a fairly good life in London. They do not work, so they are supported by other royal families and Greek tycoons. Constantinos and Family are still very very very contriversial in Greece, but, the Greek government can do nothing about it as to their visiting, as they are on Euro Passports now I believe.

As for Charity. There is the Queen Ana-Maria foundation. The Hellenic College in London that is ran by their majesties. I do however know that Princess Pavlos has a clothing line that has not exactly taken off, but, is popular among her socialites and other rich people.

There was an aricle back in HOLA magazine sometime ago stating that there was 8cents from every sweater (that MC designed with the Greeek flag on them) that was sold going to a orphanage in Greece............I am not sure that this ever happened, and if it did we would have heard more about it...

Please dont take my post too wrong. I love the Greek Royal Family. :) I hope this helps you some.

[sky]

Thank you. I didnt know that they were surported by other royals? And i kind of figured what type of person MC is before. But how does the citizens that pay their tax money for their country's RF fill about paying for another RF?

[xicamaluca]

Originally posted by sky@Sep 5th, 2003 - 10:47 am
...
But how does the citizens that pay their tax money for their country's RF fill about paying for another RF?

I belive that question must maid to the danes and to the british

I've read that the greek RF is supported by the Windsors and by Queen Anne-Marie sister, Queen Margrethe of Denmark

[lasu]

I have read that Marie-Chantal brought to the marriage a dowry of between $100-200 million.

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by xicamaluca@Sep 5th, 2003 - 12:55 pm

I've read that, too, xicamaluca, that Queen Elizabeth and Queen Margrethe heavily help out the Greek Royal family with their living expenses. But that there are also very wealthy Greeks (not sure if they are Greeks living in London or Greeks living in Greece) who also help out the Greek royal family financially. And of course King Constantine runs the Hellenic school in London, so he must draw a nice salary from that and any speeches he makes he may get paid for, too. (Former President Clinton can make as much as $1 million per speech in some cases.)

But here's my question: Queen Anne-Marie's sister supports her (or contributes to her support), and Queen Elizabeth also contributes. Does King Constantine's sister, Queen Sofia of Spain, also contribute to her brother's finances? Or maybe it is done through Queen Sofia's husband, King Juan Carlos.

... A most intriguing discussion, I must say!

What is the point of most Monarchy goverments?..Since in today's world it is become ever so irrelevent (some might disagree and I respect that.)...The Monarchy is to give the old world a sense of tiltle, priviledge and status....a note of snobbery(the attitude of 'I am better than you'!) to be thrown in for good measure! and to let the commoners salivate over the Monarchy's style, image and so- called grace (photographers and technology, got to love em'.. they can make a potato look good!). It is all image based! The "Cinderella Syndrome" of a prince fallling in love with a princess or vice versa. Any Monarchy is entrancing, enticing, and in a sense spectacular to the masses.

[George]

A excellent point was brought up: when a ruler is good, natured, just, then
it is wonderful to a n ation and a people...but due to inbreeding indeed there are
cases where there are mentally unbalanced kings and queens and then it gets...

that is some of the arguments I have heard....

I seem to think there is a lot of truth to what all of the posters here have said.

[George]

Another point I hear is if they would choose at least a girl who is willing to
be sincerely seriously DEDICATED TO THE XNTH DEGREE to the role of Princess,
then that will restore alot alot alot of respect from others and even the
begruge of opposition will have to admire her!

But me thinks I fear another error of a bad match marriage which will...errr..
rub some wrong...there are other princesses who may or may not have the
dollars KC desires for a match--but they have that natural born good breeding
of behaviour, good looks, and intelligence! willing to sacrifice their lives for this
cause of monarchy and not think about the latest "fashion house run ways"
and shopping and shopping and ad nausem and someone who is b etter
suited to do justice to the monarchy cause!

There are many royals and some minor and others who even commoners I know
who would be 100% better qualified and need little to no "royal instruction" as to
the proper way to wave, curtesy, and dress!
oh gosh...

[xicamaluca]

Originally posted by Alexandria@Sep 5th, 2003 - 2:03 pm
....

But here's my question: Queen Anne-Marie's sister supports her (or contributes to her support), and Queen Elizabeth also contributes. Does King Constantine's sister, Queen Sofia of Spain, also contribute to her brother's finances? Or maybe it is done through Queen Sofia's husband, King Juan Carlos.

... A most intriguing discussion, I must say!

I belive that they doesn't help the Greeks. When the acceded to the throne, they had the care to not do something abusive with the people money, so they decide not to help the greek RF.

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by xicamaluca@Sep 6th, 2003 - 6:25 am
I belive that they doesn't help the Greeks. When the acceded to the throne, they had the care to not do something abusive with the people money, so they decide not to help the greek RF.

That makes sense, but do the King and Queen of Spain have personal, "private" finances independent of the Spanish people's money? For instance, I think Queen Elizabeth has a private art collection that contributes to her personal finances. And I am I too modern to presume that many of these royal families may hold shares or stocks or investments of some sort, too?

What Is The Piont Of The Gr Family?

To make us feel like such losers!!!

All kidding aside, I thought Constantine had compensation from the Greek goverment? Although, at a smaller amount than requested. That amount should hold them over for awhile longer.

[cuervo]

Originally posted by Bianca@Sep 7th, 2003 - 4:54 pm

To make us feel like such losers!!!

All kidding aside, I thought Constantine had compensation from the Greek goverment? Although, at a smaller amount than requested. That amount should hold them over for awhile longer.

The GRF wanted their property back!!Once the Court desided to conpensate and confiscate,GRF wanted to reurn these money to the greek people,so The Royal Couple announced the Anna-Maria fountation in order to help Greek people after weather katastrofees etc,etc,last month!!!

As answer to the question whence a king make money???The answer is: Go ask Him,and let me know!!!!!!!!!

I don't think King Constantine works....I might be wrong though!

[George]

The royals of the 19th c and early 20th were a wonderful breed apart from
today...the women were lovely ladies and sincerely did charity work and were
dedicated, took religion and even those who converted took to their faith likes
deeply. They were fantastic. Too bad the modern newcomers do not seem to
comprehend the intensity and gravity of the responsibility and seem to think
it is all a round of fun, couture shows, this and that.

One has to make needed sacrifices. Not everyone who is young realizes this
fact.

I like Princesses Olga and Alexandra....

I wish everyone could agree that we can disagree and still be civil on the message board. it is not as if we can directly change policies anyways...

No need to get hot headed...after all...we can't cry over spilled milk-civil wars,
changes in government....life goes on ....

Everyone is allowed and has the right and duty to speak a opinion of a
different nature than everyone else....nothing is worse than people who
are like sheep and all agree without thinking...when one stops to think,
to question, to disagree, then he is devoid of life.

that is why freedom, liberty is precious to man.

[Janet]

I don't think Elizabeth II supports the Greek royal family financially.

If she did I would be stunned as many members of her own family have had serious financial problems (the Duke of Gloucester had to move his elderly home out of her marital home because he could no longer afford to mantain it, the Duke of Kent has been forced to sell jewels to fund his lifestyle and let us not forget that Marina Mowatt is on state benefits) and she has done nothing per se to help them out - of course she does provide them with amazing accomodation in Kensington Palace for absolutely nothing but I don't think she gives them loans or gifts of money.

[Elise,LadyofLancaster]

Queen Lilibet does not support the GRF financially. However, since they are la familia or simply put family...they are close to one another. I believe that almost everyone (with the exception of Theodora and Phillipos... who are in school) work.

[:Jay:]

Hey all!

I don't believe QEII would give the GRF money, she does have a way of investing money without paying taxes on it. I can't remember what it's called, but when she invests, the name of the investor is given as 'European Head of State' or something like that. This also allows other royalty to invest in Britain tax free.

This 'deal' was given to her without much negotiation needed by Churchill, when she first ascended the throne.

I admit taxes should be paid, having said that, she is encouraging investment into British businesses.

There was a review of her finances fairly recently, although I don't believe this was affected.

The private assets return to the king of Greece
(Short of the rights of Man 23,11,2000) translation from Spanish

The former king Costantino of Greece will return in possession of [his] its assets (or perlomeno he will have straight to a compensation): a series of lands and dwellings that the Government of its Country had espropriato to it as a result of the destitution of the monarchy. The Court of the rights of the man of Strasburgo, to which it had addressed the former monarch together to the sister, princess Irene, and to the aunt, princess Caterina, has judged the contrary action to the European Convention and has invited the parts to reach to an agreement to communicate them within six months. With a law adopted in 1994, the State had acquired the assets furnish and pieces of real estate of the crown, without indemnification. Subsequently, in 1997, with the declaration of costituzionalità of the law from part of special the supreme Court, the real family had lost definitively every straight on the own assets. According to the judges of Strasburgo, Greece violato article 1 of the protocol n.1 of the European Convention of the rights of the man, that it only sanctions the right to the personal property, derogabile in cases of public usefullness or in order to pay taxes. This because the assets in issue, the estates of Tatoi (with 41 990 000 m of forest), Poidendri (33 600 000 m) and of Mon Repos on the island of Corfu (238,000 m), belonged to private the real family a.tito it. In purpose, the king has supplied the documents that attested the purchases of the pieces of real estate and all one series of passages of property from one generation allaltra of the family. While the Greek Government would not have known to explain in the details because he has not proceeded to an indemnification for the espropriati assets. How much allarticolo 41, that it previews a fair compensation in case of violations of articles of the Convention of the rights delluomo, for the moment will not be applicato.La Short reservoir to offer an indemnification, in the wait that the two parts reach an agreement. The Court does not think moreover of having to examine the violation of article 14, supported dallex-king. That is to verify if it has been be a matter of a discriminatorio action in the comparisons of the real family. Because it considers sufficient to have stated the lacked respect the personal property. (27 November 2000)

HOUSES OF THE FORMER KING OF GREECE AND OTHERS v. GREECE - (Application not 25701/94) - JUDGMENT - STRASBOURG 23 November 2000



In the houses of the former King of Greece and Others v. Greece,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as to Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:

(…)

Having deliberated in private on 14 June and 25 October 2000,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned dates:

PROCEDURES

1. The houses was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol Not 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"), by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 30 October 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol Not 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention).

2. The houses originated in an application (not 25701/94) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 of the Convention by the former King of Greece and eight members of his family, on 21 October 1994. The applicants alleged that Law not 2215/1994, which was passed by the Greek Parliament on 16 April 1994 and entered into force on 11 May 1994, violated their Convention rights. The applicants to were represented by Messrs. Nathene & Co, solicitors in London. The Greek Government ("the Government") to were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Papidas, President of the Been Legal Council, and subsequently by his successor, Mr And Volanis.

3. The Commission declared the application partly admissible on 21 April 1998 in I know to make as it concerned the former King of Greece, his sister, Princess Irene, and his aunt, Princess Ekaterini ("the applicants"). In its report of 21 October 1999 (former Article 31 of the Convention), it expressed the unanimous opinion that to there had been to violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 and that it was not necessary to examine whether not to there had been to violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol Not 1.

4. On 6 December 1999 the panel of the Grand Chamber determined that the houses should be decided by the Grand Chamber (Rule 100 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Mr C.L. Rozakis, the judge elected in respect of Greece, who had taken part in the Commissions examination of the houses, withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr G. Koumantos to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1).

5. The applicants and the Government each filed to memorial.

6. To hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 14 June 2000.

Before There appeared the Court:

(a) for the Government
(…)

B for the applicants
(…)

The Court heard addresses by Mr Pannick, Professors Tsatsos and Alivizatos and Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HOUSES

7. In 1864 to crowned democracy was established in Greece, when George I, son of the Danish King Christian IX, was elected King and ascended the throne. The former King Constantinos of Greece (the first applicant) is to direct descendant of King George the He ascended the Greek throne in 1964, at the age of 24, in succession to his father King Paul I.

To The applicants property and their ownership titles

8. The applicants have produced the following ownership titles relating to their property in Greece:

(a) The Tatoi summer

9. The former King claimed that he was the owner of an area of 41,990,000 to square metres of land and to building at Tatoi. This property was formed during the reign of King George I (the first applicants great-grandfather), through successive purchases of pieces of land:

 By deed not 24101 of 15 May 1872, King George purchased from the Scarlatos Soutzos the Liopessi-Mahonia summer and from Soutzos wife the adjacent Tatoi summer, for to total of 300,000 drachmas (GRD).

 Under Law not 599 of 17 February 1877, the Greek Been transferred in full and absolute ownership to King George the the Forests known as Bafi, of approximately 15,567,000 to square metres. While The applicants have produced documents which demonstrate that the Greek government had expressed the intention of donating the Bafi Forest to King George I, the latter did not wish to to acquire this land through to donation, but insisted on purchasing it at to price fixed by the government. In the event, to it compromised was reached, whereby the Bafi Forest was expressed to be "conceded" (rather than "donated") to King George In return, the latter deposited 60,000 GRD with interest at the National Bank.

Approximately one million to square metres of the above property to were subsequently exchanged for to property of equal area adjacent to Tatoi, which belonged to local landowners, who to were paid 3,000 GRD by King George the to compensated for the difference in value between the exchanged properties.

 By deed not 55489 of 4 April 1891, King George purchased from the Andreas Syngros to part of the Kiourka summer, which is adjacent to the Tatoi summer, for GRD 110,000.

 By October1878 certifyd not 382 of 20, the mortgage to record of Marathonas attests that the Keramydi summer belongs to King George the and was devolved to him by his predecessors in title, Ioannis Malakindis, Dimitrios Vassilios and Panagis Dionyssiotis, George Kyriazis, George Sardelis and Stamata Sykaminioti. These persons had acquired the property in parts through successive purchases from 1844 to 1878.

10. By his holograph will dated 24 July 1904, King George made the the Tatoi summer to family trust ( familia-fideicommis ) in order to servants as to permanent residence of the reigning King of the Hellenes. However, according to the then prevailing Byzantine-Roman law, to family trust lasted only for four successions, which meant that the trust was released in the fourth successor.

11. Following the death of King George on the 5 March 1913, Tatoi devolved to his successor, King Constantinos I, and following the latters deposition from the throne in 1917, to his second-born son, King Alexander. After the latters death in 1920 Tatoi came back to King Constantinos I, who had in the meantime returned to the throne. After the latters abdication in September 1922, Tatoi passed to his first-born son, Crown Prince George II.

12. Then, following the abolition of the monarchy and the proclamation of the Republic by resolution of the fourth Constituent Assembly dated 25 March 1924, the Greek Been expropriated Tatoi by Law not 2312 of 14 and 20 August 1924, while the Bafi summer passed ipso Been jure and without any compensation to the.

13. Following the return of King George II to the throne, the Emergency Law of 22 January 1936 gave Tatoi back to the King in full ownership and possession, with the exception of the Bafi-Keramydi summer (an area of 3,785,000 to square metres) which, in the meanwhile, had been allotted to landless refugees. The explanatory report on this law stated, Inter alia , that the expropriation had been in breach of Article 11 of the 1911 Constitution, according to which to compulsory expropriation always had to be preceded by compensation to the owner in an amount to be determined by the courts.

14. After the death of George II on 1 April 1947, his brother Paul came to the throne. Legislative Decree not 1136 of 5 and 11 October 1949 stated the following: "The Tatoi summer, which was returned... to the late exclusive King George II, has become the unreserved, free and property of HM King Paul from his accession to the throne". Following King Pauls death on 6 March 1964, the property came to his son and successor Constantinos II (the first applicant), by virtue of his fathers holograph will dated 8 December 1959.

B The Polydendri summer

15. The former King and Princess Irene claimed that they each owned 101,5/288 of an area of 33,600,000 to square metres of land at Polydendri, and that Princess Ekaterini owned 36/288 of that area. This area was formed through the following chain of transfers:

 By deed not 38939/1906, Hassan Efendi Leondaritis, to landowner of Larissa, transferred and sold to Crown Prince Constantinos the the summer known as Polydendri, for the sum of GRD 397,500. Following the death of Constantinos I, the summer devolved to his registered heirs as follows: to his wife Sophia 2/8 ab indivisio , and to each of his children George II, Paul, Helen, Irene, Ekaterini (the third applicant) and the daughter of his predeceased son Alexander, Alexandra, 1/8 ab indivisio .

– By deeds nos. 79847 of 18 February 1924 and 80452 of 24 March 1924, the above co-heirs and co-owners (with the exception of Ekaterini) transferred and sold 7/8 ab indivisio of the estate to Athanassios Galeos, a captain in the merchant navy, for the sum of GRD 4,585,000. As regards the 1/8 ab indivisio share of Princess Ekaterini, a price of GRD 650,000 was initially agreed and the land was leased to the new owner pending completion of the required formalities, whereupon the land would be transferred to him.

– By deed no. 4289 of 20 March 1925, Athanassios Galeos and others formed the "Forest Company" (…), to which Athanassios Galeos transferred the 7/8 ab indivisio of the estate he had acquired. This company was dissolved by resolution of its general assembly dated 12 May 1938. By deed no. 22408 of 7 October 1939, the liquidators of the company transferred and sold to Crown Prince Paul the 7/8 ab indivisio of the estate for the sum of GRD 4,000,000 which was paid with funds from the dowry of his wife, Princess Frederica. After his death, 14/32 of his share of Polydendri devolved to his widow, and 14/96 to each of his three children, Sophia, Constantinos (the first applicant) and Irene (the second applicant). In 1968 Princess Sophia declined the inheritance, and her share of the estate was added to the share of the remaining heirs pro rata. After the death of Queen Frederica on 6 December 1981, and in the absence of a will, her 49/96 ab indivisio share of Polydendri devolved to her children in equal shares, each child thus receiving 49/288 of her share.

© The Mon Repos estate on the island of Corfu

16. The original title on this property is minutes no. 278 of 1 June 1864 of the Provincial Council of Corfu, by which the Council decided to offer to King George I, in recognition of his contribution to the accession of the Ionian islands to Greece, the use of the house in which the British Magistrate of the Supreme Council once lived, together with the surrounding area, situated at the place known as "Aghios Pandeleïmon of Garitza". The existing records from that time do not indicate the area, exact location or boundaries of the donated estate. The donation was later expressly recognised by deed no. 7870/1887.

17. Between 1870 and 1912 King George I enlarged the above estate by successive purchases of certain smaller or bigger tracts of land belonging to third parties, situated around or inside the farm. After two purchases made by George II, Mon Repos attained its final area of approximately 238,000 square metres.

18. Following the death of King George I, Mon Repos devolved to Prince Andreas, by virtue of King George’s holograph will dated 24 July 1904.

19. After the 1922 Revolution and by decision no. 1767/1923, the compulsory expropriation of Mon Repos was proclaimed in favour of the State in order to be used as the summer residence of the reigning King. In 1931 the administrative eviction of Prince Andreas was ordered. Legal proceedings were then instituted and, by judgment no. 57/1934, the Corfu Court of Appeal (…) recognised Prince Andreas as the lawful owner of the property and ordered the return of the estate to him. Following the restoration of the crowned democracy, Emergency Law no. 514/1937 expressly provided that Mon Repos be conceded and transferred in full ownership and possession to Prince Andreas.

20. By deed no. 11909/1937, Prince Andreas sold Mon Repos to King George II against a life annuity of GRD 400,000. King George II died on 1 April 1947. His co-heirs donated their shares to King George’s brother, King Paul, who acquired full ownership of Mon Repos (deeds nos. 3650/1957, 3816/1957 and 5438/1959). Following King Paul’s death, and by virtue of his holograph will, Mon Repos devolved to his widow Frederica (usufruct) and to his son, the first applicant (bare ownership). The usufruct was terminated by the death of Queen Frederica on 6 December 1981, and the first applicant acquired full title ownership of Mon Repos.

21. On or about 5 August 1994, following the enactment of Law no. 2215/1994 (see paragraph 41 below), the residence of Mon Repos was broken into and physically entered. It is now occupied by the municipality of Corfu.

B. The status of the property during the military dictatorship (April 1967-July 1974) and after the restoration of democracy

22. On 21 April 1967 there was a military coup in Greece. The former King remained in the country until 13 December 1967, when he left for Rome.

23. On 15 November 1968 the military regime promulgated a new Constitution (the former had been enacted in 1952), which was amended in 1973 when the former King was deposed (see paragraph 25 below). Article 21 of the 1968 Constitution (as amended in 1973) guaranteed the right of property and provided that nobody was to be deprived of property save in the public interest and following payment of full compensation, the amount of which was to be determined by the civil courts. However, Article 134 § 3 of the same Constitution provided for the enactment of a unique legislative measure which would have the effect of confiscating the movable and immovable property of the former King and the royal family.

24. Between 21 April 1967 and 31 May 1973 the military dictatorship formally maintained the crowned democracy, despite the former King’s self-imposed exile.

25. On 1 June 1973 the military regime purported to abolish the crowned democracy, to declare the former King and his heirs deposed and to establish a presidential parliamentary republic.

26. In October 1973 the military dictatorship issued a legislative decree (no. 225/1973), pursuant to Article 134 § 3 of the 1968 Constitution (as amended in 1973), whereby all movable and immovable property of the former King and the royal family was confiscated with effect from the date of publication of the decree in the Official Gazette (4 October 1973), and whereby title to the confiscated property passed to the Greek State. The three estates in question were specifically mentioned as forming part of the immovable property being confiscated.

27. The above decree provided for compensation in the sum of GRD 120,000,000 to be distributed amongst the members of the royal family whose property was to be confiscated, and this sum was deposited in a bank account with a view to being claimed by the royal family. The former King’s share of the compensation was stated to be GRD 94,000,000 and Princess Irene’s share GRD 12,000,000. No compensation was provided for Princess Ekaterini. It was further specified that the compensation had to be claimed by 31 December 1975. No part of it was ever claimed.

28. On 24 July 1974 the military dictatorship in Greece was replaced by a civilian government under the leadership of Mr Karamanlis.

29. By an Act of 1 August 1974 ("the First Constitutional Act of 1974"), the government revived the 1952 Constitution, except for the provisions relating to the form of government (Article 1).

30. Article 10 of this Act provided that, until the National Assembly was reconvened, the legislative power vested in the Council of Ministers was to be exercised through legislative decrees. Article 10 § 2 provided that such legislative decrees would be capable of having retrospective effect as regards any issues arising from any Constitutional Acts after 21 April 1967. Article 15 provided that the 1968 Constitution (as amended), and all other Constitutional Acts or Acts of a constitutional character passed under the military dictatorship after 21 April 1967, were repealed.

31. Pursuant to Articles 1 and 10 of the First Constitutional Act of 1974, the government issued a legislative decree (no. 72/1974) which provided for the property of the former King and the royal family to be administered and managed by a seven-member committee until the form of regime had been finally determined.

32. The above decree was implemented by three ministerial decisions:

(i) By decision no. 18443/1509 of 1 October 1974, a seven-member committee was formed "for the purposes of managing and administering the estate of the royal family".

(ii) By decision no. 21987 of 24 October 1974, it was provided that "the handing over [of the property] of the royal family from the State to the committee" was to be made by 31 December 1974.

(iii) By decision no. 25616 of 23 December 1974, it was provided that the handing over of the property of the royal family to the committee would continue until completion, before the handing over to its owners or to a person nominated by them.

33. Between 1974 and 1979 all the movable and immovable property of the former King and the royal family in Greece was administered and managed in the name of the committee established pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 72/1974, on behalf of the former King and the royal family. In 1979 the movable property was handed over to them.

34. On 17 November 1974 there were elections to the National Assembly, and the Assembly was thereafter reconvened. A referendum was held on 8 December 1974, the outcome of which was in favour of a parliamentary republic. By Resolution D 18 of 18 January 1975, the National Assembly resolved and declared, inter alia, that democracy in Greece was never lawfully abolished, and that the revolutionary coup of 21 April 1967, as well as the situation which resulted as a consequence up to 23 July 1974, constituted a coup d’état which aimed to usurp power and the sovereign rights of the people.

35. In 1975 the National Assembly enacted the present Constitution, which came into force on 11 June 1975.

36. In 1981 the PA.SO.K. (Panhellenic Socialist Party), under the leadership of Mr Papandreou, was elected to power in Greece. From January 1984 onwards discussions were held with the former King regarding his property. By 1988 an agreement in principle had been reached between the government and the former King relating to the property and tax liabilities of the royal family. However, the agreement was never executed.

C. The 1992 agreement

37. In 1990 the conservative "New Democracy" Party was elected to power.

38. In 1992 an agreement was reached between the former King and the Greek State, which provided as follows:

(i) The former King transferred an area of 200,030 square metres of his forest at Tatoi to the Greek State for the sum of GRD 460,000,000.

(ii) The former King donated an area of 401,541.75 square metres of his forest at Tatoi to a foundation for the benefit of the public, namely the Universal Hippocration Medical Foundation and Research Centre.

(iii) A foundation for the benefit of the public, namely the National Forest of Tatoi Foundation was created, and the former King donated an area of 37,426,000 square metres of his forest at Tatoi to the foundation.

(iv) The former King, the royal family and the Greek State waived all legal rights in connection with, and discontinued all pending legal proceedings concerning, the royal family’s tax liabilities.

(v) The former King and the royal family agreed to pay to the Greek State the sum of GRD 817,677,937 in respect of inheritance tax, income tax and capital taxes, together with interest and surcharges. The payment to be made by the former King would be set off against any sums due to the former King pursuant to the agreement.

39. The agreement was contained in and evidenced by notarial deed no. 10573/1992 of 3 June 1992. On 28 September 1992 the Division of Scientific Studies (…) of the Greek Parliament issued a report on a draft bill ratifying the above-mentioned notarial act. The report stated, inter alia, that Legislative Decree no. 225/1973 was repealed by Legislative Decree no. 72/1974 and that the property thereby "reverted to its former ownership status". Subsequently the agreement was incorporated in and given the force of law by Law no. 2086/1992.

D. Invalidation of the 1992 agreement – Law no. 2215/1994

40. In the summer of 1993 the former King and his family visited Greece.

41. Following the autumn 1993 elections, a government under the leadership of Mr Papandreou was again returned to power in Greece. The new government declared their intention of dealing with the matters relating to the property of the former royal family, in order to restore "constitutional legality and historical memory" and to satisfy "the democratic sensibility of the Greek people as this was expressed by the referendum of 1974"1. They eventually introduced Law no. 2215/1994 which was passed by the Greek Parliament on 16 April 1994 and became law with effect from 11 May 1994. It was entitled "Settlement of matters pertaining to the expropriated property of the deposed royal family of Greece", and provided as follows:

(i) Law 2086/1992 was repealed and deed no. 10573/1992 rescinded. Any acts carried out pursuant thereto were void and of no legal effect (Article 1). The acts so declared void and of no legal effect included the donation to the Universal Hippocration Medical Foundation and Research Centre at Tatoi and the National Forest of Tatoi Foundation2.

(ii) The Greek State became the owner of the movable and immovable property of the former King, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini. Legislative Decree no. 225/1973 was deemed to have remained in force (Article 2).

(iii) Title to the Mon Repos property on the island of Corfu was transferred to the municipality of Corfu (Article 4 § 2).

(iv) Taxes already assessed were written off. All legal proceedings pending before the administrative courts or the Supreme Administrative Court (…) in respect of inheritance and other taxes, surcharges and penalties were discontinued. Amounts paid by the former King and other members of the royal family in respect of tax could be claimed back from the Greek State, but the State could oppose any set-off of such a claim against any claim of the State against the royal family (Article 5 § 1).

(v) Any agreements concerning any property of the royal family, except leasehold agreements, would be declared void. Any leases of land belonging to the royal family would continue as if entered into between the lessees and the Greek State (Article 5 § 2).

(vi) Any legal proceedings brought by the former King or other members of the royal family before any Greek court using the designation "King" or any other royal designation, even if combined with the word "ex" or "former", would be regarded as void (Article 6 § 4).

(vii) Preconditions were imposed for the continued recognition of the Greek nationality of the former King and the royal family, and for the retention of their Greek passports:

– A declaration was to be submitted to the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths (…) of Athens to the effect that the former King and the royal family unreservedly respected the 1975 Constitution and accepted and recognised the Hellenic Republic.

– A further declaration was to be submitted to the Registrar to the effect that the former King and the royal family unreservedly waived any claim relating to the past holding of any office or possession of any official title.

– The former King and the members of the royal family were to register in the Municipal Register of Citizens (…) under a name and a surname.

(viii) Any legislative provision contrary to this legislation was automatically repealed (Article 6 § 5).

E. Proceedings in the Greek courts

42. The applicants brought several proceedings in the Greek courts, concerning the titles to their estates.

43. The applicants also challenged the constitutionality of Law no. 2215/1994. Following two conflicting judgments of the Court of Cassation (…) and the Supreme Administrative Court, the case was referred to the Special Supreme Court (…).

The Special Supreme Court judgment of 25 June 1997

44. The court first examined whether the applicants were entitled to bring legal proceedings before it without using a surname. The court held that "the indication ‘former King’ is mentioned in the legal documents not as a title of nobility which is forbidden by the Constitution, but in order to define the identity of this litigant, who for the reasons stated earlier, has no surname ... It concerns a reference to a historic fact, which, like other elements, can indeed designate the identity of the above person, so that this person may enjoy judicial protection".

45. As regards the question of the royal property, the court stressed that it "was from the beginning a political question", that the property rights of the applicants were linked to the form of government and that "during the reign of the royal family, the property that belonged to the King and the royal family was treated like a special category of property". The court noted, inter alia, the following:

"When the Constitution by Article 1 defines the form of the regime, by the same provision, which [should be] historically interpreted, in the framework of the political and constitutional conjuncture ... in which it was voted, pursuant to the provisions of the First Constitutional Act and of Legislative Decree no. 72/1974 that was issued on the basis of its Article 10, it also solves the issue of the royal property. In other words, the referendum renders irrevocable the devolution of this property to the State, so that its return by law to the former King would be contrary to the Constitution. Therefore, Article 1 of Law no. 2086/1992 ... which implies that the former royal property would continue to belong to the deposed monarch and the members of the former royal family, and actually connects those persons with the property, contravenes the Constitution."

46. Consequently, the Special Supreme Court, by thirteen votes to four, held that Law no. 2215/1994 was constitutional. Under the Constitution, the judgments of the Special Supreme Court are final and binding on all Greek courts (Article 100 § 4).

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

47. The relevant Articles of the 1975 Constitution provide as follows:

Article 4

"1. All Greeks are equal before the law.

2. Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations."
Article 17

"1. Property is protected by the State; rights deriving therefrom, however, may not be exercised contrary to public interest.

2. No one shall be deprived of his property except in the public interest, which must be duly shown, when and as specified by law and always following full compensation corresponding to the value of the expropriated property at the time of the court hearing on the provisional determination of compensation. In cases in which a request for the final determination of compensation is made, the value at the time of the court hearing of the request shall be considered.

3. …

4. Compensation shall in all cases be determined by civil courts. Such compensation may also be determined provisionally by the court after hearing or summoning the beneficiary, who may be obliged, at the discretion of the court, to furnish a commensurate guarantee for collecting the compensation as provided by law."

48. In Greece the number of property rights is limited (numerus clausus). The real rights that a person may have are: ownership, easements, pledge and mortgage (Article 973 of the Civil Code).

49. Articles 999 to 1141 of the Civil Code deal with the institutions of ownership and co-ownership. Ownership may be acquired in a variety of ways, as by occupancy of things that belong to no one, by transfer from a previous owner or even by a non-owner, by operation of law, by the effect of judgments, and by acts of the public authorities. For the transfer of the ownership of immovables the law requires an agreement between the owner and the transferee that the ownership is transferred for a lawful cause, the incorporation of this agreement in a notarial deed and its transcription at the transcription registry in the district in which the immovable is located (Article 1033).

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

50. The applicants complained that Law no. 2215/1994 violated their right of property. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.