1. The 1992 law concerning the former King�s property was annulled.
2. His immovable property was confiscated.
3. The contents of his houses were confiscated.
4. His Greek citizenship was revoked and his right to hold a Greek passport was denied, unless,
5. ..he registered at a local Town Hall, swore allegiance to the Greek Constitution and confirmed that he and his heirs have no further claim to the monarchy.
6. His right of audience in a Greek Court was denied under the name �King Constantine� (see below)
Right to property The Human Rights Convention states that there is no discrimination and that everybody has the right of access to the Court.
King Constantine referred the case to the Commission of the European Court of Human Rights with the contention that the three Applicants� (King Constantine, Princess Irene, Princess Ekaterini) rights to property had been violated through confiscation, as directed by the 1994 law. The Commission was asked to decide whether this violation had taken place.
In a unanimous decision of the 30 judges, -including the Greek one-, the Commission ruled that the human rights of the Applicants had been violated and referred the case of the confiscation of the property to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The Commission maintained that on the issue of name, King Constantine had not been wronged by the Greek Government, as his full title had been used in the previous court procedures which had taken place in Greece, -and had therefore been accepted by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Special Court and the Council of State.
The Ruling On the 22nd November 2000, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its Judgment by a majority of 15 to 2. It ruled that the human rights of the Applicants had been violated, as their property had been confiscated.
In its deliberations, the ECHR had to examine the cases of ownership for each of the relevant properties and determined that they belong to the Applicants and in particular, Tatoi to King Constantine, Mon Repos to King Constantine and Polydendri to King Constantine, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini.
A chance to compromise Following the ruling, the Court suggested that the two parties coordinate a settlement within a six-month period. Unfortunately, the Government refused to settle out of court, so the two parties tendered their observations in May 2001. Following these papers the Court requested that further observations were put in by December 2001. This is normal procedure in a case of this size.
The ECHR has always encouraged a friendly settlement, and indeed the former King has taken every opportunity both through the Court and in his paperwork to suggest that the parties should reach a friendly agreement and thus avoid a heavy tax burden on the Greek people.
April 2002 The final observations were to be submitted on 1st March 2002. This date has been moved to the 16th April by Government request. The Court will deliver its ruling on the level of compensation, if the Greek Government is still adamant on its decision not to return the properties to King Constantine and the other Applicants.
The two parties received each other�s reports after the ruling and were asked to submit observations on these, if an agreement had not been reached within a six-month period. Further supporting evidence was submitted in the reports of December 2001 and will be contained in the final papers now due on April 16th 2002.
In 1974, Konstantinos Karamanlis passed a law, by which the Greek Royal Family would be taxed on their immovable property and income.
When the Papandreou Government was elected in 1981, the property tax was introduced. Negotiations were initiated between the Greek Government and King Constantine due to the size of the taxable estate.
An agreement was reached and was about to be signed when Andreas Papandreou was hospitalized in London. It was further postponed as elections came up; the new Government resumed negotiations, which led to the 1992 agreement.
The 1992 agreement
In 1992, King Constantine and the Greek Government made an agreement which was later ratified by Law. According to this law:
The former King was to retain a piece of Tatoi (containing the house and the graves), Polydendri and Mon Repos.
King Constantine established a Foundation to which he donated 37,000 stremmas (1 stremma = 1,000 sq m) of the Tatoi land for public use.
The Latsis foundation was given 401 stremmas for the purpose of building the finest children�s hospital in Europe. Latsis decided not to continue with the project after certain reactions in the Greek press.
The Greek State was given 200,000 sq m, which the Papandreou Government leased to the US for their antenna installations. The 25-year lease exceeded the total amount of taxes owed by the Greek Royal Family at that time.
Furthermore, King Constantine personally paid $1,85m for past taxes and for penalties on these taxes.
The Government�s argument
The Government have asked an eminent firm to prepare an estimate of what taxes would have been due had the Greek Royal Family been liable to tax over the period of more than a century.
However, the Greek Royal Family was exempt from taxes by Law until 1974. It is important to note, that in return for non payment of tax, the King was personally liable for all incurring expenses, including running of the palaces and maintenance, personnel, transportation, entertaining foreign dignitaries and state visits. All of the above are today paid by the Greek taxpayer for the President of the Republic.
Furthermore, Greek Law and the Greek Constitution prohibit the retrospective imposition of taxes, so the exercise of calculating fictitious taxes by the Greek Government is a completely futile one. No taxes are owed by the former King.
