Home › Country › Greece
Greece

Greece - Monitoring report

Date of the monitoring visit: from 26 to 28 November 2024 and from 7 to 9 April 2025
Report adopted on: 30 0ctober 2025
Files : Report CG(2025)49-17 | Recommendation 539 (2025)
All Monitoring Reports

This report follows the fourth monitoring visit to Greece since it ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government in 1989.

 

The rapporteurs note with satisfaction the extension of the Charter’s application to the regions, in line with previous Congress recommendations, and the progress in modernising the local government system. They also welcome the national government’s intention to implement legal reforms despite facing economic difficulties. Inter-institutional dialogue between central and subnational authorities has improved, and appropriate legal mechanisms have been applied to ensure the protection of the Charter’s principles.

However, the report raises several concerns regarding the limited powers of local self-governments, highlighting their lack of authority to adopt binding local regulations, and the unclear distribution of competences. Additionally, the rapporteurs express concern about the understaffing and insufficient financial resources of local and regional authorities, the weak fiscal autonomy of local authorities, and the national criminal legislation that hinders the free exercise of mayoral functions.

The national authorities of Greece are therefore invited to finalise the ongoing reform proposals to deepen decentralisation, clarify the allocation of competences between central and subnational authorities, grant local authorities the general power to adopt local regulations, ensure that local and regional revenues correspond to responsibilities, enhance local taxation powers to increase fiscal autonomy, and revise the current criminal legislation concerning the liability of mayors. The rapporteurs also recommend that Greece ratify the non-ratified articles of the Charter, as well as sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority (CETS No. 207).

legend
Article ratified Ratified with reservation Non ratified
Compliance Partial compliance Non compliance To be determined
Unfold all
Fold all
Article 2
Constitutional and legal foundation for local self government - Article ratified

The principle of local self government shall be recognised in domestic legislation, and where practicable in the constitution.

The GC refers to local government in several provisions. The most important ones are art. 101 and 102, while art. 105 lays down specific provision for the area of Mount Athos, which is defined as “a self-governed part of the Greek State”. It is important to note that the GC only refers to “local government agencies”, while it does not make any explicit reference to the regions as self-government entities.

 

Thus, art. 101.1 is a key provision, since it proclaims that “the administration of the State shall be organised according to the principle of decentralisation”. The decentralisation (understood as a process of transfer of power from the central State administration to the local one) is proclaimed as the paramount principle for the organisation of the State territory. For its part, art. 101.2 declares that “the administrative division of the Country shall be based on geoeconomic, social and transportation conditions”. This provision, though, has little connection with the Charter since it has mainly a “technocratic” dimension.

 

The 3rd indent of art. 101 is devoted to the “deconcentrated” State administration, and to the central State administration (ministries, agencies) something that is not relevant at this point, either.

 

Art. 101. 4 makes a specific reference to the insular and mountainous areas, whose special features must be considered by “the legislator and the Public Administration”. The specific features of these areas have been referred to, above.

 

For its part, art. 102 of the GC proclaims in its first indent that “the administration of local affairs shall be exercised by local government agencies[19] of first and second level” and that “for the administration of local affairs, there is a presumption of competence in favour of local government agencies”.

 

The second indent of art. 102 clearly enshrines the principle of local self-government: “Local government agencies shall enjoy administrative and financial independence”; moreover, it proclaims the democratic underpinning of local government: “their authorities shall be elected by universal and secret ballot, as specified by law”.

 

The 3rd indent provides for the associations “of local government agencies to execute works or render services or exercise competences” belonging to them. The 4th indent enshrines the principle of State supervision over local authorities (see below).

 

Finally, the 5th indent provides that the State shall adopt “the legislative, regulatory and fiscal measures required for ensuring the financial independence and the funds necessary to the fulfilment of the mission and exercise of the competences” of local authorities”.

 

Precisely on this constitutional basis, the legal scheme of local and regional government is exclusively regulated by the central institutions (the Parliament and the Government).

 

The analysis of the compliance of the Greek legal system with art. 2 of the Charter still faces the problem (noted in precedent Congress monitoring reports) that, although the Constitution proclaims the principle of self-government, it does not refer explicitly to regions. However, since regions are considered to be 2nd-tier local authorities, there is no problem to admit that regions are also included in the constitutional wording of “local government agencies” or in the wording of “local authorities of second level” (art. 102.1).

 

Apart from that, the legislation of local and regional authorities also proclaims the principle of self‑government for both types of entities.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with the requirements of Art. 2 of the Charter.

Article 3.1
Concept of local self government - Article ratified

Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.

This key provision of the Charter defines local self-government as “the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population”.

 In its current wording, and following the 2001 constitutional revision, art. 102 of the GC provides at par. 1 that: “1. The administration of local affairs shall be exercised by local authorities of first and second level. For the administration of local affairs, there is a presumption of competence in favour of local authorities. The range and categories of local affairs, as well as their allocation to each level, shall be specified by law. The Law may assign to local authorities the exercise of competences constituting mission of the State”.

In light of this provision, we need to examine the content of art. 3.1 of the Charter, which involves several issues: (1) first, the “right” of local authorities to manage a substantial share of public affairs.  (2) second, the “ability” (that is, the factual capacity) of the said authorities to manage those affairs; and (3) the right to “regulate” local affairs.

To begin with, let us consider the “right” of local authorities to manage a substantial share of public affairs. This approach raises the issue of the local competences. The system of local competences is discussed in more detail below, in connection with art. 4.1 of the Charter. If the competences of the municipalities and the competences of the regions are joined and they are assessed as a unitary group of powers, the assessment is that the share of public affairs that are managed by the two tiers of local authorities may be considered as “substantial”, “significant” or “meaningful”, especially if one considers the centralistic tradition of the country and the successive (and mild) processes of decentralisation that have taken place so far.

The second aspect triggered by art. 3.1 of the Charter is the “ability” (that is, the factual capacity) of the local authorities to manage those affairs. On this question, the Delegation heard several complaints of the local representatives in the sense that many local authorities lack the real power to manage in an effective way the local affairs that, according to the law, lay in their realm of competences. Three main factors explain this inability:

First, the fact that many local authorities face serious financial problems and are under-financed. Second, many municipalities are understaffed (see a deeper analysis of this question at point 3.3.2, below). Consequently, the lack the human resources (especially, expert and technical staff) prevents them to discharge effectively their competences. In this sense, the interlocutors met during the visit pointed out repeatedly that they lack the necessary engineers and architects to discharge effectively their competences in planning permits, verification of requirements, control of buildings, etc. This complaint was made, for instance, by the mayor of Athens.

Finally, another issue prevents, in the day-to-day activities, to manage effectively the “local affairs” for which they are competent: the fact that the State has also competences in most domains where the local authorities act. The State agencies and ministries still have to authorise or issue positive reports or opinions for many decisions or initiatives taken by the municipalities. This is presented below (see point 3.2.4).

The third and final topic involved in art. 3.1 is the right of local and regional authorities to “regulate” the local affairs. This provision is commonly interpreted in the sense that local authorities must have the power to approve rules (local regulations) by which they “regulate” different aspects of the local life, and by they can frame policies of their own.

In Greece, municipalities do not have the general power to adopt binding local regulations, as it happens in many countries across Europe. The reason for that is of constitutional nature: Greece is mainly a centralised country, and the sources of the Law are monopolised by the State normative institutions: the Parliament (legislation) and the central government and ministers (regulations).

Local authorities do not have a general regulatory power, and they can only pass local regulation when the sectoral laws (a specific statute) authorise them to do so (for instance, traffic and circulation of vehicles).

This fact largely prevents them to frame and to implement their own policies for handling most local issues.

The situation of the regions is more or less the same: they lack legislative powers (they do not have parliaments) and they do not have the power to enact “regional” regulations of binding nature, either.

 In light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece partially complies with the requirements of the Article 3.1 of the Charter.

Article 3.2
Concept of local self government - Article ratified

This right shall be exercised by councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal, universal suffrage, and which may possess executive organs responsible to them. This provision shall in no way affect recourse to assemblies of citizens, referendums or any other form of direct citizen participation where it is permitted by statute.

This provision of the Charter raises two different issues: on the one hand, what are the key ruling bodies of the local authorities, their democratic roots and their mutual relations. And on the other hand, the involvement and the participation of the local citizens in the decision and handling of local affairs. These two issues are considered separately.

Art. 102.2 of the GC proclaims the democratic underpinning of local government when it states that the authorities (governing bodies) of the local authorities “shall be elected by universal and secret ballot, as specified by law”.[20] There are two types of local authorities (municipalities and regions), which require to present them separately.

(A) Municipalities

In Greece, the top bodies of the municipalities are the mayor, the municipal council and the municipal committee. As in many countries, the mayor is the executive body and the local council is the deliberative body, which adopts the key decisions of the municipality (such as the local budget).

The local council has a number of members that depends on the number of inhabitants. Thus, for a municipal population of up to 2,000 inhabitants, the local council has 13 members, and this figure grows proportionally. For instance, if the municipality has over 150,001 inhabitants, the council has 43 local councillors.

The Municipal Committee consists of the mayor (or the Deputy Mayor appointed by the Mayor) as the president, and a number of members that depends on the number of local councillors. For instance, if the municipal council has up to nineteen members, the Municipal committee has four members.

The Municipal Committee is responsible, among other tasks, for monitoring and implementing municipal decisions and for the financial control and the regular monitoring of the implementation of the municipality's budget.

In the Greek model, the mayor is strong, and the most prominent political figure of the municipality. Apart from its Chair, the Municipal Committee is elected by the Council among its members and has its own responsibilities, especially for economic affairs, for municipal personnel, for contracting and municipal procurement, tenders etc.

Apart from those key, essential bodies, in the municipalities there may be different multi‑member bodies (committees), which may be set up by the local council and have an advisory function, such as the “Council on immigrant integration”, or the “Municipal committee for gender‑equality”. Apart from that, there might be an Ombudsman-type of official, who is discussed below (see 4.1).

The mayor and the municipal council are elected separately, on the same day but using different ballot boxes. They are elected every five years by means of free, universal and secret vote. The system, though, has not remained stable: all the contrary, there have been several successive reforms in this domain.

The delegation was informed that there has been a constant change in legislation concerning the electoral process and the democratic designation of the key political local bodies. Since 2015, there have been different legislative amendments or reforms on local government. For instance, the electoral system was amended in 2019 and in 2021.

The 2019 reform was due to the fact that, the existing local electoral system was not conducive to the formation of local governments. The interlocutors reported that, in the period 2014-2019, after the local elections it was impossible to form a governing coalition in municipal council and committees in roughly 60% of the municipalities. During that period, the election of the mayor was organised in two rounds, but the system allowed the existence of mayors with a weak or very weak majority in the local council. Many mayors had not enough councillors to form a workable majority and an operational government. It was very common that the mayor was in minority in the council. For instance, in the city of Thessaloniki the mayor had only 9 local councillors (out of a total of 47).

As a consequence, the mayors could not pass any relevant measure (for instance, the local budget). Consequently, the system was leading to institutional deadlock and paralysis in municipal action.

In the summer of 2019, and following the victory of the “New Democracy” party and of Mr Mitsotakis in the general elections, the new government promoted a change in the local electoral system, and a new legislation was passed that year.

In 2019, the electoral system used proportional representation to select the members of local and regional councils based on 1st round results, while mayors and regional presidents were elected only after securing 50% of the vote plus one.

The new system allowed the transfer of powers and competences (after the elections) from the local council to the municipal committee, where the mayor had automatically the majority.

However, the new system was challenged in court, precisely in the Council of State, and the top judicial body issued a ruling in 2022 declaring that the new system was illegal and unconstitutional because it did not respect the original will of the voters expressed in the ballots (see below, at point 3.8).

This judicial ruling was a sort of cataclysm and there was a nine-month period of interregnum. The situation triggered the need to approve a new legislation. The new system was enacted in 2022 and implemented during the local elections that were held in 2023 (the last elections, so far).

In the current electoral system (enacted in 2022), the head of the winning electoral formation (in the first or in the second round) is elected as mayor. The distribution of seat in the municipal council is as follows:

 

(1st rule) If the percentage of the winning electoral formation during the first electoral round ranges from 43% to 60%, or if the formation is declared winner during the second round, that formation obtains automatically 3/5 of the number of seats in the municipal council.

 

(2nd rule) If the percentage of the winning formation during the first round is greater than 60% of all valid ballots, then the seats of each formation are distributed proportionally.

 

Thus, in the new law the regional and local leaders need to secure at least 43% of the vote to be elected in the first round, with the winning list being guaranteed a majority of 3/5 of seats in the local or regional council. The law also introduced a 3% threshold that any list has to surpass in order to obtain seats. The reform was meant to strengthen the influence of regional and local leaders and ensure ‘governability’.[21]

 

Concerning electoral participation in local elections, in Greece voting is compulsory, but the obligation is not actually enforced. In general, the turnout has declined since 2012, and the 2023 regional and municipal elections saw one of the lowest turnouts in history.[22]

 

As noted above, during the monitoring visit the Delegation was briefed that the Ministry of the Interior was preparing an important local reform that touches among other topics, the local elections.

(B) Regions

The political organisation of the regions largely mirrors that of the municipalities. Thus, in the regions the top political bodies are the Head of the Region, the regional council and the regional committee. Mutatis mutandis, they discharge the same powers as the mayor, the municipal council and the municipal committee, respectively.

 

Apart from that in the regions there are different multi-member bodies (committees), which may be set up by the regional council: up to two sectoral committees (for decision-making in specific areas of the regional policies) or advisory committees (“ad hoc” committees).

 

The head of the region (usually called “Governor”) and the members of the regional council are also elected by the voters, the same day as the election for municipalities. Concerning the method of election, the head of the winning electoral formation is elected as Head of the region.

 

The number of seats that every electoral formation obtains after the regional election is determined according to a complex formula that takes into consideration different alternatives.

 

The regional council has a number of members that depends on the number of inhabitants. Thus, for a regional population of up to 300.000 inhabitants, the regional council has 35 members, and this figure grows proportionally. For instance, if the region has over 800.001 inhabitants, the council has 61 members, and the region of Attica has a special rule, as it has 85 members local councillors.

 

The Regional Committee consists of the Head of the region (or the Deputy Head appointed by the Head) as its president, and a number of members elected by the regional council that depends on the number of inhabitants. For instance, if the region has up to 300.000 inhabitants, then the number of members of the regional committee is six.

 

The Regional Committee is responsible for carrying out the audit and monitoring implementation of the regional budget and monitoring the implementation of the regional policies in the realm of the region’s competences, and the implementation of the regional development plan.

 

Like in municipalities, the Head is the top and most visible figure of the region and has all the representation and executive powers.

 

Citizen’s participation: assemblies, local referendums

 

The Greek system of local and regional authorities includes many avenues and possibilities for the participation of citizens in the local affairs, especially after the Kleisthenis reform, such as town meetings, assemblies or neighbourhood councils.

 

To begin with, in the local communities (those included in the territory of a municipality) there is a specific meeting for the residents, called “Municipal Community Residents Assembly”, which are convened by the President or by the Council of the community. The residents are called to meet and to discuss any issue concerning the local community and propose similar actions to the relevant bodies of the Municipality.

 

In the municipalities the municipal council may also set up a “Council on Immigrant Integration”. This is an advisory municipal body aimed at strengthening the integration of immigrants into the local society. Municipal councillors, representatives of migrant associations, or representatives appointed by the immigrant community who are legally resident in the local Municipality as well as social actors are allowed to participate.

 

Another interesting feature, (lacking in many European countries) is the so-called “Report on Municipal Activities”. This is an annual public meeting, held by the municipal council, where all the municipal activities in terms of administration, implementation of the annual action plan and the Municipality’s financial situation are assessed. In this meeting, the inhabitants are entitled to give their views.

 

The attraction of the young people into the handling of local affairs is getting a growing importance, in view of the scepticism and lack of interest that young people tend to show in politics in general and in local politics in particular. In this sense, the Law provides that the local council may set up “municipal youth councils”, which should attract the young local residents in the discussion and decision of local affairs. This is good practice and the result of the dedicated efforts of university students, particularly from Northern Greece, who advocate for a structured youth participation at the local level. Unfortunately, to date only 20 out of 332 municipalities have set up this youth councils.

 

At regional level, there is also a special public meeting, convened every year by the regional council, where residents, the mayors of the municipalities of the region and representatives of political parties are invited. At the meeting, which is called by 31st January of the following year, the actions of the regional authority in terms of the implementation of the annual action plan, the financial situation and the administration of the region are assessed.

 

Apart from that, the law provides that the meetings of all multi-member local bodies must be public. The transparency and publicity of all local decisions is further ensured through the mandatory posting of all municipal and regional decisions and actions on the internet. The Council sessions are public (and in many municipalities, they are broadcasted through streaming on the web).

 

Local citizens are allowed to take part in the meetings. The local residents (and even the unregistered municipal residents) may, either individually or collectively, present reports or submit questions on municipal decisions. The Municipal Council must respond to the questions raised by the local residents or their associations within thirty (30) days. Meeting participants are obliged to discuss these proposals if they are submitted by at least twenty-five people, and the mayor must inform all interested parties on the decision adopted.

 

A final question regards the local referendums, a topic that is expressly mentioned by the Charter in this provision.

 

 

Traditionally, Greece had no specific provision for the holding of referendums within individual local authorities.[23] This is still the case for the specific case of the local referendums held to revoke the mandate of the mayor or the members of the local councils (recall referendums).[24]

 

However, the Kleisthenis reform changed significantly the situation. Currently, local Referenda are allowed in Greece. Law 4555/2018 (the so-called "Kleisthenes Law”) included a new relevant legal framework[25] that allows, in principle, the organisation of these referendums at municipal and (also) at regional level. Those provisions regulate the requirements and the procedure for calling the referendums, the necessary debates, norms and principles concerning fund raising, expenses and media coverage during the election period, the rules on voting, etc.

 

It should be noted, however, that the implementation of these provisions was "frozen" for 4 years (2019-2023): Article 11 par. 1 of Law 4674/20, stipulated that: “1. The validity of articles 133 to 151 of Law 4555/2018 (A' 133) is suspended throughout the current municipal and regional period”.[26] This means that after the last municipal and regional elections of October 2023, referenda can be held according to this law. However, no referendum has taken place yet in recent years, according to our interlocutors.

 

Apart from local referendums (stricto sensu), informal consultations of the local citizens by the mayor are held frequently.

 

Another point that must considered here is the fact that Greece has not signed the Additional Protocol to the Charter, on the right to participate in the decision of the local affairs.

 

It may seem that the main obstacle could be the fact that the Additional Protocol mentions local referendums (2.2.a), while the Greek system does not allow for them (see supra). However, the wording of the Protocol is not strict in terms of obligations, since it uses the verb “may”.[27]

 

On the other hand, and according to the local leaders met by the delegation, Greece is already complying de facto with the requirements stemming from the mentioned Protocol. Therefore, at first sight it could seem reasonable to recommend to the Greek authorities that they sign and ratify (or at least that they sign) the Additional Protocol to the Charter.

 

In the written reply to the delegation, the Minister of the Interior pointed out that : “Regarding the signature of the Additional Protocol, we note that, in accordance with our consistent position, the reason for not signing is due to our reservation[28] to paragraph 4.1 of Article 1 of the said Protocol, from which it follows that the rightto vote in elections for local authorities is granted to citizens who reside in the territoryof the local authority concerned[29]. This may mean that the Protocol speaks of "occasional” residence, disconnected from the concept of popularity which in our legislation is linked to fixed criteria of residence and, moreover, is recognised by Greek law as acondition for the granting of the relevant right”.

 

Therefore, the only real problem with the Protocol seems to be the notion of “municipal citizenship”, which may pose technical and operational problems. The fact is that a high number of Greek citizens are still registered as municipal citizens in their places of origin (mostly villages), although they have been residents of big cities for years.

 

In view of these statements, it is not foreseeable that Greece signs or ratifies the Additional Protocol in the near future. In theory, Greece could do it, just by formulating a reservation (in the strict sense of the word) to par. 4.1 of art. 1 of the Additional Protocol. However, the Additional Protocol does not allow for any reservation to its different provisions.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece complies with the requirements of Article 3.2 of the Charter.

Article 4.1
Scope of local self government - Article ratified

The basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be prescribed by the constitution or by statute. However, this provision shall not prevent the attribution to local authorities of powers and responsibilities for specific purposes in accordance with the law.

 Art 4.1 of the Charter prescribes that the “basic powers and responsibilities” of the local authorities shall be prescribed by the constitution or by statute. However, this fact shall not prevent the attribution to local authorities of powers and responsibilities for specific purposes in accordance with the law”.

 

In Greece, the competences of the municipalities and the regions are not prescribed or enumerated in the Constitution, but in regular legislation. In reality, this is common practice in most European countries.

 

The Greek Constitution proclaims several presumptions or principles in this domain: (a) first, that “for the administration of local affairs, there is a presumption of competence in favour of local government agencies”; (b) second, the notion of local affairs is not defined by the Constitution and it is a matter of legislation or of judicial interpretation: “the range and categories of local affairs… shall be specified by law”; (c) third, that these bunch of categories … shall be specified by law; and (d) fourth, that “The Law may assign to local government agencies the exercise of competences constituting mission of the State”, a wording that is very similar to the last indent of Article 4.1 of the Charter.

 

Consequently, the competences of municipalities and regions are enumerated in the legislation. This legislation maybe of two sorts: (a) general legislation on local authorities (see, above, point 2.1 (A)); and (b) sectoral legislation on the different areas of governmental action (urban planning, transportation, environment, etc.).

 

From the outset, it is important to underline that, during the visits to Greece, the Delegation received many expressions from their interlocutors in the sense that the allocation of powers between the different administrative levels of the country (central State Administration, State deconcentrated administration, municipalities and regions) is far from being clear. In too many cases this allocation is confusing and sometimes it is hard to know “who does what” in a given sector of governmental action.

 

The local representatives met by the Delegation provided different examples of areas where the allocation of competences is incomprehensible, or the competences overlap.  For instance, regional representatives pointed out that the field of civil protection is very confusing, and the allocation of competences is very unclear, with a constant conflict of powers between the regions and the State. This is critical because the matter is very connected to “natural disasters”, a reality that unfortunately is well-known in Greece (forest fires, floods, etc.). Apparently, this unclear allocation of powers is also present in the matter of “roads”, and “infrastructures”.

 

The responsibilities of the two levels are divided as follows:

 

Competences of the Municipalities

 

The competences of the municipalities are systematized and divided into eight sectors, according to Article 75 of the Code of Municipalities and Communities (Law 3463/2006). Under that provision, the responsibilities of the municipalities include eight specific areas of activity, comprising the fields of:

 

-       Development

-       Environment

-       Quality of life and proper functioning of cities and settlements

-       Employment

-       Social protection and solidarity

-       Education, culture and sports

-       Civil Protection

-       Rural development - Livestock – Fisheries

 

In each of these fields or areas, municipalities have more detailed competences, which are prescribed by State legislation. For instance, in the domain of environmental protection, municipalities draw up programmes for the protection of the natural, architectural and cultural environment; they protect and manage the water resources; they combat pollution; they protect the soil and they protect the inland waters from fishing; they collect and manage solid waste. The detailed responsibilities are listed in Article 94, par. I of Law 3852/2010.

 

Apart from these general “fields” of competences, insular municipalities exercise additional powers in the areas of:

 

-       Agriculture, livestock and fishery

-       Natural resources, energy and industry

-       Employment, trade and tourism

-       Transport and communications

-       Works, urban and spatial planning and environment

 

Finally, the mountain municipalities exercise powers in the “core” fields enumerated above and, in addition, in the additional fields of:

 

-       Energy

-       Waters

-       Forestry

-       Agriculture and livestock

-       Support of local community and economy

 

Competences of the regions

 

The main competences of the regions include the design, the planning and the implementation of regional policies in different sectors, in accordance with the principles of transparency, effectiveness and efficiency. Those sectors of activity are systematised in the provisions of Article 186 of Law 3852/2010, and they include:  

 

-       Planning, development

-       Agriculture, livestock, fishery

-       Natural resources, energy-industry (water management, energy, industry and manufacturing)

-       Employment, trade, tourism

-       Transports, communications

-       Works, spatial planning, environment

-       Health

-       Education, culture, sports

-       Civil protection and administrative support

 

In each of these fields or areas, the regions have more detailed competences, which are prescribed by State legislation. For instance, in the domain of environmental protection, regions do frame environmental policies; they deliver a series of permits and authorisations; they are also responsible for urban and industrial wastewater disposal, etc. The detailed responsibilities related to the protection of the natural and man-made environment are listed in all sections in Article 186 of Law 3852/2010.

 

Special provisions apply to the metropolitan areas of Athens and Thessaloniki, and to the island’s regions, which can only be mentioned here for the sake of concision.

 

The system of competences for local and regional authorities is enshrined in the Law, and the Constitution includes a presumption or general principle that local authorities have the power to administer local affairs.

 

Even if the system lacks the necessary clarity, the requirements of the Charter are met. Moreover, and as noted supra, at the time of the visits the Ministry of the Interior was working on a massive re‑codification of the current legal scheme on local and regional authorities, that would include, as one of its key goals, the clarification of the allocation of competences among the different governmental tiers of the country.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece complies with Article 4.1 of the Charter.

Article 4.2
Scope of local self government - Article ratified

Local authorities shall, within the limits of the law, have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority.

As noted supra, the GC proclaims several principles that are connected with this provision of the Charter. On the one hand, art. 101.1 provides that “the administration of the State shall be organised according to the principle of decentralization”. On the other hand, art. 102.1 sets the general principle that “the administration of local affairs shall be exercised by local government agencies of first and second level. For the administration of local affairs, there is a presumption of competence in favour of local government agencies”.

 

At first sight there is no express proclamation of the “general competence clause” that some European countries (such as France) recognise in favour of the municipalities (Clause de competence Générale).

 

However, the above constitutional provisions could be also interpreted in the sense that, in Greece local authorities have “discretion” (as a constituent part of its “independence” ex art. 102.2) to take initiatives in connection with any local matter (since there is a kind of “reserve of action” in favour of the local authorities for “any” subject or issue that can be characterised as a “local affair”).

 

Moreover, art. 102.1. in fine of the GK proclaims that “there is a presumption of competence in favour of local government agencies”. This constitutional “presumption” could be interpreted in the sense that there is an “inherent” or “natural” capacity of the local authorities to act in local affairs.

 

The fact that this “initiative” must be implemented with due respect to the competences of the State (in the sense that the State is the one that identifies the local competences, see previous point) is just a necessary and local corollary of the system of allocation of competences to the local level in Greece. Not to forget that according to art. 4.2 of the Charter this ability of the local authorities must be exercised “within the limits of the law”.

 

A different issue is whether “de facto” and in reality, the Greek municipalities have the effective capacity to adopt these innovative initiatives, considering their general unsatisfactory circumstances (underfunding, under-staffing, etc). Naturally, this will depend on the local authority concerned, and its peculiar circumstances.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece complies with Article 4.2 of the Charter.

Article 4.3
Scope of local self government - Article ratified

Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy.

Art. 4.3 of the Charter provides, first, that “Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities who are closest to the citizen” and second, that the “allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy”. This provision is commonly understood to embody the “subsidiarity principle”.

 

The GC has a similar provision. First, it provides at art. 101.1 that “The administration of the State shall be organised according to the principle of decentralization”. Decentralisation and subsidiarity are intimately connected, and it can be said their content are complementary. Second, the GC states that “Regional administrations of the State shall have general decisive authority on matters of their district” (art. 101.3).

 

From this constitutional provision one may derive clearly that the local affairs are entrusted (as a rule) to municipalities and that affairs having a larger territorial dimension are entrusted to the regional administrations of the State.

 

A negative aspect in this domain is that the so-called ‘third wave of decentralisation reform” provided by the Kallikratis law in 2010 has been postponed because of the crisis but it is still pending even though the crisis formally finished in 2018.

 

According to the replies to this question provided by the Ministry of the Interior, the principle of subsidiarity is substantiated by the way in which competences are distributed according to the level of governance (local, regional, supra-local, national) and by the delegation of competences according to the specificities described (mountain and island municipalities, island regions and metropolitan governance). The Minister stated textually: “the legislative provisions for the transfer of competences both from the decentralised state administration to the local authorities and the second-tier local authorities to the municipalities are based on the principles of subsidiarity and proximity”. During the consultation procedure, the National Delegation mentioned concerns about weak local governance, especially regarding fragmented responsibilities and limited strategic autonomy.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with art. 4.3 of the Charter, although there is clearly a large room for improvement and for deepening decentralisation.

Article 4.4
Scope of local self government - Article ratified

Powers given to local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by another, central or regional, authority except as provided for by the law.

The enumeration of the areas of responsibility for local and regional authorities that has been presented above in connection with art. 4.1 (point 3.2.1) is just a first approach to the actual competences of municipalities and regions, because it includes a legal enumeration of “fields” or “matters”. However, in order to find out which are the actual or detailed competences of the three levels of government (State, regions and municipalities) it is necessary to perform a deeper analysis of the legislation. The result of such analysis can be found in the above mentioned report submitted by the Ministry of the Interior[30], which includes a complex set of tables (four pages), describing “who does what” in each matter. For instance:

 

-       In the case of police, there is a “shared” competence between the State (national police) and the municipalities (municipal police)

-       In the case of registry office, there is also a shared competence between the State and the municipalities

-       Highways: shared competences between the State and the regions

-       Waste collection: competences are shared between the regions and the municipalities, etc.

 

The analysis of those detailed tables reveals that, in the majority of the fields enumerated by the legislation, there are shared competences, either (a) between the State and the regions (example: highways), (b) between the State and the municipalities (example: electoral lists); or (c) between the regions and the municipalities (example: irrigation).

 

In reality, the fields where all the competences belong to the municipalities are very reduced: for instance, cemeteries and slaughterhouses. In the case of the regions, there is not one area where the regions have all the competences. In all the areas where regions act, they do that jointly with the State or with the municipalities.

 

In addition, in the vast majority of the fields and subfields, the State has also (concurring) competences and powers. Instances of overlapping responsibilities between State and local authorities persist, particularly in environmental management.

 

This triggers another major issue, that has been mentioned above: the State agencies and ministries still have to authorise or issue positive reports or opinions for many decisions or initiatives taken by the municipalities. Decentralized administrations, which are state appointed, often interfere in areas where local authorities should have exclusive jurisdiction, thereby undermining local autonomy.

 

Apparently, the amount of permits, approvals and positive reports that local authorities must obtain from the different State ministries seem to be high. For many actions, initiatives, or for the fulfilment of their competences, the State happens to have, too, concurring competences, under which the local authorities (especially, the municipalities) need to ask for permission to a different ministry. Local leaders complained repeatedly of excessive “red tape”.

 

In addition, the procedures for obtaining the approval or positive reports from the State ministries and agencies usually take too long, with the effect of “paralysing” de facto the local initiative or project.

 

For instance, the mayor of Athens reported that a historical fountain located in the city centre needed to be cleaned and refurbished. To this end, the municipality needed to obtain a favourable opinion from the Ministry of Culture. They waited for it since April 2024, and it had not been released yet in November 2024.

 

The same applies when a municipality wants to refurbish a local street. For instance, the mayor of Livadia also reported that the refurbishment of a local public square has needed 5 years. The examples were multiple.

 

Local authorities often lack the discretion to take in iterative independently due to a) centralised control mechanisms; b) limited fiscal autonomy, c) administrative dependence on national guidelines and approvals.

 

During the consultation procedure, the Ministry of Interior stressed that in 2023 the National System of Multilevel Governance was established by law, with the aim of functionally classifying public policies and establishing a methodology for the allocation, reallocation, or transfer of responsibilities between levels of administration. The Ministry also highlights that the implementation of the National Multilevel Governance System, along with the implementation of the relevant Multi-Level Governance Information System, will further contribute to a more complete understanding of the legislative framework by administrative bodies and the identification of any overlaps or legislative gaps in order to remedy them.

 

In conclusion the powers of municipalities and regions may not be considered as “full and exclusive”, but mainly “shared”, and deeply intervened or “conditioned” by the competences of the State.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Article 4.4 of the Charter is not complied with in Greece.

Article 4.5
Scope of local self government - Article ratified

Where powers are delegated to them by a central or regional authority, local authorities shall, insofar as possible, be allowed discretion in adapting their exercise to local conditions.

 

This provision of the Charter states that “where powers are delegated to them by a central or regional authority, local authorities shall, insofar as possible, be allowed discretion in adapting their exercise to local conditions”.

 

The GC foresees explicitly the question of the powers that are delegated to the municipalities by the State at 102.1: “…The Law may assign to local government agencies the exercise of competences constituting mission of the State”

 

The phenomenon of delegation of powers from the State to the municipalities is well-known in Greece. Conversely, in Greece it is not common, and it is not foreseen, that the Regions delegate missions or powers to the municipalities.

 

The voice and the opinion of the local authority that receives the delegated power and competence must be taken into consideration, whenever any such transfer is to be decided by the State, in this sense, it is important to underline that, under par.12 of art. 283 of the Act Nº 3852/2010, the respective national association of local-regional authorities (KEDE and ENPE) are allowed to provide their opinion, in case of transfer of competences to (respectively) municipalities and regions.

 

Another question is whether, when the municipalities receive this delegation of powers, they are “allowed discretion in adapting their exercise to local conditions”.

 

It does not seem that this is the case, in view of the structural deficiencies that local authorities have. However, the wording of the Charter is not strict (“insofar as possible”). Therefore, it is hard to conclude that there is an open violation of this provision of the Charter.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs believe that there is partial compliance with Article 4.5 of the Charter.

Article 4.6
Scope of local self government - Article ratified

Local authorities shall be consulted, insofar as possible, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and decision-making processes for all matters which concern them directly.

 

This provision of the Charter provides that “Local authorities shall be consulted, insofar as possible, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and decision-making processes for all matters which concern them directly”.

 

This is an essential provision of the Charter and a fundamental principle in every system of local authorities. Consequently, it must be carefully analysed.

 

In the previous Recommendation of the Congress on Greece (2015), the monitoring report acknowledged that there was a good “de facto” pattern of interinstitutional communication and dialogue between the ministry of the Interior and the national associations of local and regional authorities

 

Despite this finding, the Congress expressed its concern that “institutionalised co-ordination and consultation processes among the State, regions and municipalities are lacking”. Consequently, the Congress invited the Greek authorities “to improve the consultation processes among the State, regions and municipalities for all matters which concern them directly”.

 

It should be recalled, as the monitoring report did already in 2015, that the case-law of the Council of State has established that for every transfer of powers from central or regional authorities to local authorities and for the allocation of the local affairs to the different levels of decentralisation, it is necessary to obtain the opinion of the local authority in question, before the transfer of powers.[31]

 

During this monitoring visit, the Congress delegation could note that the situation is more or less the same for what concern the “institutionalisation” of the inter-governmental consultation: no specific body has been set up to this end.

 

However, the Delegation could notice that there is a good pattern of communication and consultation between the current Minister of the Interior (Mr Livanios) and the local leaders. All the local interlocutors of the Delegation conceded that the climate of communication and dialogue is good, frank and open. This is facilitated by the personal attitude of the Minister, that is very positive and proactive for dialogue. The Minister usually attends the major meetings of the two main associations of local and regional authorities. Minister Livanios announced the reform of the system of local authorities that has been mentioned above (see point 2.1) at the annual conference of the Central Union of Greek Municipalities, held in Rhodes in November 2024.

 

According to the statements of the Ministry of the Interior, this State administration is in constant communication and consultation with local and regional authorities on various matters concerning institutions and procedures. Regarding the municipalities, and apart from the continuous cooperation between the political leadership of the Ministries, the Ministry of Interior and the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece (KEDE, representing the 332 municipalities of the country) entertain constant negotiations and talks.

 

The importance of personal, one-to-one relations in the Greek culture should be noted. The Minister declared that he meets personally with several mayors every day. And several mayors met by the Delegation acknowledged that they knew personally the Minister and that they had met him in person more than once.

 

According to the relevant legislation, during the processing and certainly before the final adoption of important regulatory decisions concerning the municipalities of the country,KEDE expresses a relevantopinion. [32]

 

Also, the participation of KEDE´s representatives in the formulation of opinions on matters relatedto local self - government takes place at all stages of consultation in the parliamentary procedure, in accordance with the Rules of the Parliament.

 

At the Parliament, local and regional authorities are invited alongside many other stakeholders during the procedure in committees (prior to the debates in the Plenum of the Parliament). Municipalities and regions also take part in online deliberations of draft laws just as any citizen can.

 

Concerning the regions, similar practices are implemented with them on an individual basis and with their association, the Union of Regions (ENPE).In particular, special provisions of the Act Nº 3852/2010 require the consultation of ENPE before the adoption of regulatory decisionsconcerning the regions.[33]

 

Apart from that, art. 188 of the said Act foresees the advice of the association of regions when the State administration intends to issue any regulatory act related to a number of fields, such as: (a) sustainable development; (b) land-use or spatial or town- planning plans and decisions; (c) the location of facilities.

 

Furthermore, a similar provision is found in Section II of Article 210 of the said Act, for additional metropolitan functions.

 

Finally, Art. 186 of the said statute lays down specific provisions allowing the regions to formulate opinions and proposals. For instance, regions may submit proposals to the central authorities for projects and policy measures of national importance that concern the region and form part of a medium-term national programme. They can also propose to the competent Ministry policies and measures for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises.

 

They can also submit proposals to the relevant ministry, aiming at boosting the business activity in theregion. And they can issue an opinion addressed to the Ministry of Energy, in view of the approval of an Integrated Urban Interventions Plan. Finally, they can submit recommendations on major projectsand projects of special civil protection status. [34]

 

Equally, the participation of ENPE and its representatives in the formulation of opinions on matters related to local self-government is also possible in all stages of consultation as mentioned in the parliamentary procedure, according to the Rules of the Parliament.

 

Against this ministerial vision, the delegation received a different view from the local leaders. Although they conceded that the situation has improved in general, they made several complaints. First, they pointed out that the Government does not take seriously the opinion of the concerned local authority when it authorises a windfarm[35] or a five-star hotel[36]. These competences belong to the State, not to the local authorities, and when the Government decides to authorise such projects, it does not follow usually the opinion (frequently, contrary to the project) of the local authority where the project is going to be implemented.

 

The same, apparently, happens in the matter or urban planning, which is a competence of the State. Although municipalities have the right to initiate the planning process, State agencies decide on spatial planning, and in most cases, they disregard the opinion of the local authorities concerned by the plan. The intervention of the municipalities in the planning process is very reduced, in comparison with usual practices in other countries. During the consultation procedure, ENPE and KEDE highlighted that creation of a permanent and formal consultation body would ensure more structured, timely and effective participation in national decision making.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece complies with Article 4.6 of the Charter.

Article 5
Protection of local authority boundaries - Non ratified

Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute.

 

The analysis of the application of this provision of the Charter, according to which “changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute” cannot forget the fundamental point that Greece is not bound by this article (see, above).

 

As noted by the 2015 monitoring report, “the process of mergers of municipalities has been a prominent feature in the Greek territorial landscape in the last decades, especially in the “Kapodistrias” and “Kallikratis” reforms (par. 152).

 

These reforms included massive amalgamation of many local authorities, accomplished in an executive manner and without negotiation, or even consultation of the concerned local authorities.

 

At present, the changes to the administrative boundaries of a municipality may take place under certain conditions provided for in articles 2-5 and 10-13 of the Law 3463/2006 (“Code of Municipalities and Communities”) and article 5 (“Redefinition of boundaries of municipal communities within municipalities of over 100 000 inhabitants, transfer of a local community to a neighbouring municipality”), as well as article 6 of the Law 3852/2010 (“the Kallikratis reform”) (“Establishment of a local community from a settlement which is defined in the census as independent”).

 

Apparently, the opinion of the local authorities involved is requested. During the consultation procedure, the National Delegation stressed that a more inclusive, bottom-up approach will ensure smoother and better alignment with local realities. Moreover, the holding of local referendums is enshrined in article 216 of the Law 3463/2006, but this provision has been replaced by the provisions of articles 133-151 of Law 4555/2018 which were much more systematic. These provisions have been “frozen” by Art. 11 of the law 4674/2020 till the end of the term of office of the bodies that had been elected in the municipal elections of 2019. This was due to the fact that due to the proportionality system no governing coalitions could be formed in nearly 60% of the municipalities and direct participation, local referenda etc. were expected to make the political situation even more complex in these municipalities. Following the municipal election of 2023, these provisions about citizens participation and local referenda (art. 133-151 law 4555/2018) are again valid and can be activated by the municipal authorities. However, there is not a single case of a local referendum up to this day.

 

In the light of the foregoing, it appears to the rapporteurs that the current legal system meets the requirements of the Charter. They recommend that the national authorities ratify this provision.

Article 6.1
Appropriate administrative structures and resources for the tasks of local authorities - Article ratified

Without prejudice to more general statutory provisions, local authorities shall be able to determine their own internal administrative structures in order to adapt them to local needs and ensure effective management.

 Article 6.1 of the Charter provides that local authorities shall be able to determine their own internal administrative structures, “without prejudice to more general statutory provisions”.

 

The internal organisation of the local and regional authorities is not regulated by the Constitution. The specific legislation on the matter (Code of local authorities and others) set the mandatory organs that must exist in every municipality or region (as presented supra). The State laws regulate in detail the municipal organisation.

 

However, this “mandatory” organisational chart is not exhaustive and Greek municipalities enjoy a mild and limited degree of autonomy in establishing their internal bodies and organs, with due respect to the “basic” or essential organisation defined by State legislation. Since local authorities lack regulatory powers, they may set up these bodies by means of internal by-laws and “ad hoc” decisions, usually in the plenary session of the local council.

 

Consequently, the current legal scheme allows the municipalities to set up specific instances, some of which are mentioned at different places of this report (Council on Immigrant integration, municipal “ombudsman”, municipal committee for gender equality, Municipal Youth Councils, etc.).

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with Article 6.1 of the Charter.

Article 6.2
Appropriate administrative structures and resources for the tasks of local authorities - Article ratified

The conditions of service of local government employees shall be such as to permit the recruitment of high-quality staff on the basis of merit and competence; to this end adequate training opportunities, remuneration and career prospects shall be provided.

According to art. 6.2 of the Charter, the conditions of service of local government employees should allow the local and regional authorities to recruit high-quality staff on the basis of merit and competence. Apart from that, local authorities should provide their employees with adequate training opportunities, remuneration and career prospects.

 

The general principle governing the staff of the local and regional entities is that this group of employees share the same regulation as the rest of public sector employees. Therefore, the constitutional provisions on the civil service (titled “Status of Administrative Agents”) apply also to them (art. 103.6 of the Greek Constitution).[37]

 

The extensive constitutional rules on this matter provide (inter alia) that:

 

-       the qualifications and the manner of the appointment of civil servants shall be specified by law (art. 103.1 Greek Constitution);

-       a civil servant can only be appointed to a post provided by law (103.2);

-       some posts (“technical”, “assistants”) may be filled by employees on private law contracts (103.3), whose conditions and duration will be specified by law (103.8);

-       as a rule, civil servants have tenure, that is, “they are permanent so long as these posts exist” (art. 103.4);

-       their salaries shall evolve in accordance with the provisions of the law (art. 103.4);

-       it is prohibited to convert by law the contractual employees into permanent civil servants or temporal employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration (103.8);

-       no civil servant may hold two posts in the public sector at the same time, although some exceptions apply (art. 104.1).

 

The GC is notable in the sense that it includes two long articles on the civil service, a feature that is unusual in comparative constitutional law. This feature has been explained by scholars as an instrument or attempt to terminate long-term and structural clientelism and patronage practices that undermined for decades the principles of meritocracy, objectivity and transparency in the recruitment of government employees, practices that are in part responsible of the traditional over-staffing of the Greek public sector[38].

 

The civil service system in Greece follows basically the French administrative model. It is a career system, where civil servants are recruited at the lower echelons and advance through promotions at the higher bureaucratic level.  Public sector personnel, including those in local governments are classified into different categories and grades[39].

 

In addition to the tenured civil servants, local authorities employ people on a contractual basis, i.e., through private legal contracts of indefinite or temporary duration, and they can also conclude private legal contracts for specific jobs that must be carried out (the so-called “project” contracts).

 

For budgetary reasons, restrictive measures on the hiring of public sector personnel were introduced at the beginning of the 1980’s. These restrictions came mainly as a reaction to a situation described by Greek scholars where, following certain collective practices, political clientelism and lack of transparency, the number of municipal personnel climbed from 25,000 employees at the beginning of the 1980’s up to 50,000 by the late 1990’s and reached in 2012 the astonishing figure of 100,000 employees (including those of municipal companies).[40]

 

For a long time, it was not uncommon that, by means of a piece of legislation, contractual (temporary) employees were transformed into full civil servants. In view of such legislative practices, the constitution was amended in the sense above described, and today it explicitly prohibits giving tenure to contractual employees or changing their temporary status into a civil servant status. This is why art. 103.8 of the GC provides today that “it is prohibited to convert by law the contractual employees into permanent civil servants or temporal employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration” (103.8).

 

Nowadays, due to the financial crisis, the IMF and EU controls and the long-term austerity programme, these controls and restrictions over the staff of public administration (including the local ones) have been tightened even further.

 

Indeed, there are very tight controls over the recruitment procedures in the local governments. First of all, there is a strict moratorium on the recruitment of new officials. According to that policy, there is a rule according to which any “positive” growth of personnel is prohibited, and only one civil servant may be recruited for filling up a position that came vacant for reasons of retirement.

 

Another controlling feature was the creation of ASEP. As noted supra, the GC provides at art. 103.6 that “the recruitment of civil servants shall take place either by competitive entry examination or by selection on basis of predefined and objective criteria and will be subject to the control of an independent authority.

 

This independent authority is the Supreme Council for civil personnel selection (“ASEP”). This body was established by Law 2190/1994 (OG No. 28/3.3.1994) as an independent authority responsible for securing the implementation of the provisions on public sector staff recruitment. This statute defines the Council’s activities and processes. The role of ASEP was further enhanced under the 2001 Constitution amendment, as the institutional guardian of the principles of transparency, publicity, objectivity and meritocracy in the civil personnel selection. The ASEP follows and monitors closely any recruitment practice, every selection process organised by any governmental level.[41]

 

On the other hand, retired staff are not easily replaced. When a vacancy takes place, the local authority has to justify thoroughly the need to hire a fresh employee and that it cannot fill the position by hiring temporary, contractual employees, or having recourse to subcontracting with private companies. In some cases, the only solution to understaffing is to outsource, contracting with private companies, a practice which does not mean increasing in-house staff.

 

Thus, municipalities and regions need to obtain the necessary permission and authorisation from the competent ministry and the ASEP. This, usually, takes a long time. But this is not the end of the procedure. A selection process must be put in place, with all guarantees of objectivity and impartiality.[42] Consequently, recruitment procedures require considerable time to be carried out. In most cases, local authorities are only authorised to hire contractual employees for a fixed term (maximum 8 months).

 

This situation puts in serious difficulty the municipalities that need to fill seasonal vacancies. For example, many tourist island municipalities need to recruit people for tasks that are only needed during the tourist season (for instance, street cleaning). Unfortunately, it is often impossible for the interested local authority to go through all the procedures in time, and the recruitment is not always timely. During the consultation procedure, the Ministry of the Interior highlighted that fast-track procedures have been introduced and approval is granted only by decision of the Minister of the Interior.

 

There are not only rigid legal restrictions imposed upon hiring: municipalities and regions have practically no possibility of developing a human resource management system of their own. The reason is that “negotiations between employees and employers are organised nationally, given that salary increases, and other claims are settled at the level of central government”. [43] Then, although the local authorities are the employer, bargaining with trade unions is conducted by the central government (especially the Ministries of the Interior and of Finance). The managerial autonomy of the local authorities on the salaries of their ow employees is, hence, extremely limited to certain posts.

 

As a result of these and other factors, the interlocutors met by the delegation reported a structural and overall situation of under-staffing, which is common in all Greek municipalities and regions (or in most of them). This understaffing is especially acute in terms of specialised or highly qualified employees. Municipalities and regions need additional high-skilled personnel. For instance, the mayor of Athens reported that the city faces many difficulties for hiring experts, and that it does not have engineers or architects who would verify the requirements when the city receives applications for new building licenses. Since subcontracting (externalising) is allowed, then the city makes (too) frequent recourse to this.

 

During the consultation procedure, the Ministry of the Interior stressed that a multi-annual and annual strategic planning system for the recruitment of regular and temporary staff for all public bodies was established, including the first and second degree local authorities and their legal entities (Law 4590/2019-Government Gazette A'17, art. 3 and Law 4622/2019-Government Gazette A’133, art. 51, as replaced by art. 20 of law 5027/2023-Government Gazette A’ 48).

 

Mobility across the different levels of government has been encouraged or even mandated by the “Kallikratis” reform, but it has had a limited success, according to the interlocutors that the delegation met during the visit.

 

In the opinion of the rapporteurs, the under-staffing is one of the most serious structural problems facing Greek municipalities and regions, which reduces their operational capacity to perform efficiently their competences and deliver local public services of high quality, although this situation may be explained or justified by powerful historical, political and economic reasons.

 

Consequently, the rapporteurs consider that Greece does not comply with Article 6.2 of the Charter.

Article 7.1
Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised - Article ratified

The conditions of office of local elected representatives shall provide for free exercise of their functions.

Art. 7.1 is the shortest provision of the Charter and proclaims that the conditions of office of local elected representatives shall provide for free exercise of their functions. Despite this laconic wording, the analysis of the application of this provision was the object of recurrent remarks and claims on the part of the local leaders and representatives.

 

The usual analysis of this provision involves issues such as (a) the frequency of violent actions perpetrated by local residents against the mayors or local councillors; (b) the frequency of hate speech, in media or in social networks; (c) the existence of “de facto” threats of dismissals by State agencies or authorities; (d) other legal or “de facto” threats.

 

In the case of Greece, the local representatives met by the delegation confirmed that there are very few cases of violence against the mayors. Hate speech against local elected representatives is also neglectable. Nor is there a situation of abusive interventions or dismissals of local elected officials by the government.

 

However, the mayors expressed concern about the situation, which they define as “defencelessness”, in the face of a feature of the Greek legal order. Given that a local authority cannot be sued criminally and given that the mayor is the legal representative of the authority, it is very common for businesses or residents of the municipality to denounce the mayor before the criminal courts whenever they suffer damages as a result of the discharge of local services and activities, or when there is a malfunctioning of the local services and departments.

 

All of this is possible under the current legislation, and it is not necessary for the mayor to have acted maliciously or with gross negligence. Once the complaint has been lodged, criminal proceedings are opened and the mayor finds himself/herself in the dock, a fact that can also have very negative consequences for the exercise of his/her functions. For instance, once the criminal proceedings start, the mayor may be suspended by the Ministry of the Interior, until the proceedings culminate. The prosecuted mayor may certainly come back to the office if finally acquitted, but the proceedings are usually very long: two-three years is the rule. Consequently, a criminal prosecution may mean, in practice, the end of the mayor’s mandate.

 

The mayors consider that this situation is unacceptable, that they are not sufficiently protected by the law and that their presumption of innocence is being denied. They demand the necessary legal amendments.

 

The mayors claim, too, that they are not adequately protected by the law in the discharge of their duties, and that they are too frequently prosecuted, sometimes for disaster on which they do not held responsibility (forest fires) or for petty or trivial questions for which they are not responsible at all (someone falls in the street and claims that the pavement is in a bad state, there is a fire that has not been properly extinguished by the fire brigade, local pipes cause a flood in a private garage, etc.)

 

During the visits, the Minister of the Interior informed the Delegation that, although legislative changes were already introduced in 2018, one of the issues that is going to be amended by the local reform that his department was drafting was precisely the protection of mayors. Apparently, if the reform is successful, a three-member commission (composed of judges) will decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the mayors must be suspended or not, in view of a criminal complaint filed against them.

 

In view of all the above considerations, the rapporteurs consider that Greece partially complies with Article 7.1 of the Charter.

Article 7.2
Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised - Non ratified

They shall allow for appropriate financial compensation for expenses incurred in the exercise of the office in question as well as, where appropriate, compensation for loss of earnings or remuneration for work done and corresponding social welfare protection.

According to this provision, the conditions of office of local elected representatives “shall allow for appropriate financial compensation for expenses incurred in the exercise of the office in question as well as, where appropriate, compensation for loss of earnings or remuneration for work done and corresponding social welfare protection”.Greece is not bound by this article of the Charter.

 

Anyway, this is another critical provision of the Charter, which has been recurrently at the centre of any debate on the application of the Charter in Greece.

 

In recent years, the financial crisis determined an important cut in the remunerations of the elected representatives. As a rule, only the mayor and one or two deputy mayors, depending on the size of the municipality, are remunerated on a regular basis if they work full-time as mayor or vice-mayor.

 

As for municipal councillors, they do not receive a fix salary, but only an allowance that theoretically covers the cost incurred by attending the meetings of the local council or its sub‑committees.

 

Two issues dominate the debate: the first one is the fact that local authorities cannot in any way determine the level of remunerations for their mayors or heads of regions. Those entities have absolutely no power to do that, and this issue is totally and exclusively decided by the Government and by the Parliament (annual Budget Act).

 

The second issue is the level of the remunerations. The fact is that the low remuneration of mayors and heads of regions has emerged as key and recurrent claim during the different meetings held during the two visits. For local representatives, this is a very sensitive issue.

 

The remuneration of the mayor depends on a scale, based on the number of “official” (permanent) local residents of his municipality. For instance, the mayor of a city of 70,000 inhabitants and a budget of some € 120 million get a net salary of €2,200. The highest salaries (in the same amount) are paid to the mayors of Athens, Thessaloniki and Patras. This level of retribution is considered to be insufficient for several reasons.

 

First, when someone becomes a mayor, he/she must give up temporarily the exercise of his/her profession, if it is a liberal professional such as a doctor or a lawyer, since keeping it is incompatible with the holding of the office of mayor. In this vein, it is important to note that the mayors, deputy mayors, presidents of the municipal councils, heads and vice-heads of regions and the presidents of the regional councils who are government employees by career are entitled to an unpaid special leave throughout their term of office. This possibility is much more limited if the mayor is a private employee in a private firm.

 

Second, there is the paradox that in some cases, the mayor may receive a salary that is lower than those of some local employees (for reasons of professional echelon or seniority). [44] This does not make sense and does not happen in any private firm.

 

Thirdly, the mayors claim that their office is very complex and that they are permanently exposed to the event of criminal prosecutions (see, precedent point), and that they need higher salaries as a matter of dignity and to compensate the social relevance of their function. In comparison with the salaries of the members of Parliament, their remunerations are much lower.

 

Fourth, they claim that, because of financial reasons, the present situation dissuades many young people to engage in local politics.

 

The heads of regions also complained that there is the same fix remuneration for all of them. According to article 181 of law 3852/2010, a governor’s remuneration was equal to the monthly remuneration of a Ministerial Secretary General. It was reduced by 10% with the article 3, par. 3a, of law 4051/2012 (a provision for the remunerations of elected representatives of both tiers). All elected representatives of both tiers who are entitled to an increase by 20% to their remuneration in case they are persons with disabilities. All these are provided also in the Common Ministerial Decision 75011/2024. Since January 2025 they receive 5.121 Euros with taxes and contributions or 3.145 Euros net.

 

They claim that the remuneration for a Head of Region is not only low in comparison with the complexity of their tasks and their political responsibilities, but also that it does not take into account the number of inhabitants of the regions.

 

Local leaders also reported that there has been a recent change in the legal scheme: a new “Joint Ministerial Order” of the Minister of Interior and the Deputy Minister of Economy and Finance has increased the retributions of the mayors and those of the heads of regions. This increase depends on the population of the local authority and is connected to the wages of a Secretary of State in a cabinet Ministry, which are taken as reference. This has meant, apparently, an overall pay rise of roughly 200€ for all mayors. This has been the first pay rise for local elected representatives in 12 years.

 

Thus, according to this recent joint decision, from 1 January 2025 the salary of the mayors in municipalities with a population of more than 200.000 residents, and the salary of the heads of regions will be equal to 100% of the salary of a Secretary General in a Ministry. The mayors in municipalities with a population between 100.001 and 200.000 residents will receive the equivalent of 90% of the salary of the said Secretary General.  

 

Mayors in municipalities with a population between 20.001 to 100.000 residents will receive the equivalent of 76% of the salary of the Secretary General of the Ministry and mayors in municipalities with a population of less than 20,000 residents will receive the equivalent of 62% of the salary of the Secretary General of the Ministry.

 

Moreover, deputy mayors will receive 55% of the mayor's salary, while the chairs of the municipal councils will receive 22% of mayor’s salary. The deputy Head of Region will receive 75% of the salary of the Head of Region, and the chairmen of the regional council will receive 25% of the regional governor's salary.

 

The Minister of the Interior made a formal statement that, in the context of the new Local Government Code, the remuneration of elected officials will be further reviewed to meet basic demands, always in line with the country's economic potential and in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance.

 

In order to draw a conclusion about the “sufficiency” of the retributions of local elected representatives in one country, several issues must be considered, such as the cost of living in that country, the historical precedents, the overall economic situation, and the fact that it is still subject to strict international obligations concerning fiscal consolidation.

 

In the case of Greece, it is clear that a mayor earns a lower salary than (for instance) a German or French mayor for a similar municipality, but it is also true that these remunerations are much higher than those of a Moldovan mayor (included the mayor of the capital city).

 

One cannot disregard, either, the tough economic and budgetary situation of Greece, a country that has suffered a harsh fiscal crisis and that is subject to a draconian long-term programme of austerity monitored by international institutions. Moreover, in recent days, as referred supra, there has been a notable increase in those retributions.

 

All in all, the rapporteurs conclude that, although Greece is not bound by Article 7.2 of the Charter, it “de facto” meets its basic requirements. Therefore, the Greek authorities should be encouraged to ratify this provision.

Article 7.3
Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised - Article ratified

Any functions and activities which are deemed incompatible with the holding of local elective office shall be determined by statute or fundamental legal principles.

 According to this provision, “any functions and activities which are deemed incompatible with the holding of local elective office shall be determined by statute or fundamental legal principles”.

 

As noted supra, the Constitution itself has a say on this issue when it provides that “none of the employees mentioned in the preceding article may be appointed to another post of the civil service or of local government agencies or of other public law legal persons, or of public enterprises or public utility agencies. As an exception, appointment to a second post may be permitted by special statute, in compliance with the provisions of the following paragraph”. This provision applies to the local elected representatives that were, before being elected, professional civil servants. As stated above, the local elected representatives who are government employees by careers are entitled to an unpaid mandatory special leave throughout their term of office.

 

The law provides for objective criteria on the incompatibility of tasks. For example, and to safeguard the public interests, several persons are prevented from standing for the offices of mayor, deputy mayor or member of the municipal council: this prohibition refers to judges, religious officers, armed forces and security forces officers as well as any person having any relation with the municipal authorities, or any debt or owing money to the municipality.

 

On the other hand, it is also prohibited to stand for elections at both levels of local government (municipalities and regions). Therefore, no one may be at the same time mayor and head of the region, or member of the local council and member of the regional council. Any election of the same person as an elected representative of the first and second level local government is precluded. It is also prohibited to be mayor and member of the Parliament, and Heads of Regions are prevented from being candidates for the Parliament even if they resign before the end of their term of office at the Region (Art. 56 of the Constitution).

 

In conclusion, the Greek legal system meets the formal and material requirements of Article 7.3 of the Charter, and Greece complies with this provision.

Article 8.1
Administrative supervision of local authorities' activities - Article ratified

Any administrative supervision of local authorities may only be exercised according to such procedures and in such cases as are provided for by the constitution or by statute.

 As stated above, Greece has traditionally been a centralised State, and it largely remains so. Centralism requires unification of the sources of the Law (therefore, municipalities and regions lack normative powers) and the possibility for the State institutions to supervise, monitor or “control” the activities, decisions and measures of the other two territorial levels of the republic. The State must have the power to redirect to unity and uniformity the activity of the other governmental bodies.

 

This explains the fact that the GC, besides recognising local autonomy, has enshrined the State supervision over local and regional authorities. In this vein, art. 102, 4th indent of the GC enshrines the principle of State supervision over local authorities, which “shall consist exclusively in the review of the legality”.

 

In the current system, the activities, services and decisions of the local and regional authorities are monitored, supervised or controlled by different State bodies and institutions: (a) the courts; (b) the Hellenic Court of Audits; (c) the national Ombudsman; d) the National Transparency Agency; [45] and
(e) the different central ministries, especially the Ministry of the Interior.

 

Concerning the supervision that is implemented by the State central administration, it must be underlined that the “Kallikratis law” (Act Nº 3852/2010) reformed the existing scheme and laid down the foundations of the current system.

 

Currently, the State exercises supervision over the acts and decisions of the municipalities, the regions and their legal entities. This control focuses exclusively on reviewing legality. There is also an oversight over the local elected representatives running these authorities (called “disciplinary control”). Each type of control follows a different procedure and is inspired by different principles.

 

According to the system of supervision laid down in the “Kallikratis law”, the competent bodies within the State administration for the supervision of local authorities are the Decentralised Administrations, the Court of Audit, the Independent Service for the Supervision of Local Authorities (arts. 214-236 of the said Act) the Minister of Interior (Article 237 thereof) and the Observatory for Economic Autonomy of Local Authorities. The Independent Service for the Supervision of Local Authorities is established at the headquarters of each of the seven State “decentralised administrations” and conceived as a professional service with civil servants, to depoliticise the institution of administrative Supervision. The Introduction of this new, depoliticised system has been postponed several times. In 2015, a civil servant with the title of “Coordinator” overtook the responsibility for state supervision during the ongoing “transition period”. In 2022, however, a political appointee, the “Secretary” overtook again the responsibility for state supervision.

 

It should be underlined, however, that until now the Independent Service for the supervision of the local authorities has not been operational yet.[46]There is, then, a transitional stage that will last until the actual establishment of those “Independent Services”. During this period, the control of the legality of the acts and decisions adopted by the local and regional authorities is implemented by the Secretary of each “Decentralised Administration”. This secretary is appointed by a joint decision of the Minister of Interior and of a Special Committee provided for in the Law.[47]

 

In general, the scheme for supervision often complies with the requirements of the Charter. The fact, however, that the heads of the supervision authorities are political appointees creates an environment of mistrust.

 

In the same vein, and until the Independent Service for the Supervision of Local Authorities will come into operation, the “disciplinary control” of the local elected representatives is also exercised by the Secretary of each Decentralised Administration.

 

As far as the “disciplinary control of local elected representatives” is concerned, this is rooted in the Greek tradition. Apart from the correction of minor offences and bad conducts, the Greek system foresees the possibility to impose on the elected officials the serious penalty of suspension from office, or even the dissolution of a municipal or regional council.

 

This, however, is the harshest penalty, and it can only be declared for serious reasons of public interest. The final penalty, after a contradictory procedure, is declared by a decision of the Minister of the Interior, based on the concurring opinion of a disciplinary board, the majority of which is composed of judges, and on a special reasoned report prepared by the competent Supervisor of Local Authorities.

 

Another important control and supervision over the local and regional authorities is discharged by the Hellenic Court of Audit. [48] This court implement different types of control over the local and regional authorities, which are subject, like the rest of the Public Sector, to its competence. [49]

 

In the past, the Court of Audit audited ex ante all local authority expenditure. This system was abolished and replaced by an audit that is mainly ex post, although some exceptions persist. For instance, the Court of Audits still controls “ex ante” certain expenses of the local authorities, such as the award of public contracts with a budget over €300,000. The local or regional authority must send the draft decision to the Court of Audits before awarding the contract to the selected bidder. This is reinforced by the fact that, if the local authority does not send the file beforehand, the public procurement is considered to be “null and void”[50].

 

Thus, the Court of Audit, through a specific “commissioner”, can monitor during the financial year the normal collection of the revenues of the entities forming the local public sector (municipalities, regions, cooperative and instrumental entities, their legal entities etc.) [51].

 

If the competent commissioner finds inaction on the part of a local authority (or its financial services) concerning the collection of their debts, taxes, fees or fines, he may send a document to the Coordinator of the State decentralised administration and to the Legality Auditor, and they will request the concerned local authority to effectively collect their rights within a reasonable deadline.

 

The ex-post audit is carried out by the Court of Audit after the production of the final financial statement. This key document must be released at the end of the fiscal year by every local and regional authority. 

 

Therefore, the Court of Audit is responsible for carrying out ex post audits on the accounts of municipalities, regions and their public entities, as well as on the accounts of all the public utilities enterprises (water supply, sewerage, etc.). These types of audits are annual and are conducted randomly, except in cases where an issue is identified and then, a more general audit is conducted on the local or regional authority at stake.

 

Apart from this control of “regularity” in the management of public funds, the Court of Audit also performs “performance audits”, where the local public accounts and budget execution is analysed from other perspectives, such as efficiency, professionality, etc. These audits may verify whether the internal control bodies (present in all local and regional authorities) do their job correctly. These internal bodies must prepare and make public an internal audit statement.

 

In view of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with Article 8.1 of the Charter.

Article 8.2
Administrative supervision of local authorities' activities - Article ratified

Any administrative supervision of the activities of the local authorities shall normally aim only at ensuring compliance with the law and with constitutional principles. Administrative supervision may however be exercised with regard to expediency by higher-level authorities in respect of tasks the execution of which is delegated to local authorities.

Greece is not bound by this article. This, however, does not prevent the rapporteurs to check what is the current legal scheme on this point.

 

306.     Concerning the type of administrative supervision that is implemented by the State delegated administrations and by the line ministries (control of legality, control of expediency, ex ante or ex post control), art. 102 para. 4 of the Constitution provides that “the State shall exercise supervision over local self-government organizations, which shall focus exclusively on reviewing legality”.

 

307.     In accordance with this explicit constitutional requirement, Article 214 of Law No. 3852/2010, provides that the State supervision over local authorities is limited to the control of acts (control of legality) and the control of persons (disciplinary control of elected officials).

 

308.     In the context of the control of the legality of the acts of the local authorities, a series of decisions of the collective bodies of the municipalities, the regions and the legal entities of these, which are listed restrictively in the law on the basis of their importance, must be sent to the competent decentralised administration for legality control, within fifteen days of their issuance (art. 225 par. 1 of Law No. 3852/2010).

 

309.     According to the current supervision system of Law 3852/2010, legal control is exercised with specific procedures and deadlines and is exclusively ex post. 

 

310.     On receiving the acts and decisions forwarded by the local authorities, the Secretary of the Decentralised Administration (who exercises the powers of local authorities’ Supervisor on a transitional basis) will check the legality of the decision within a limited period of thirty days. As a consequence of the examination of the adopted measure, the Secretary may issue a “mandatory special act” addressed to the local authority that adopted the act or measure (Article 225 of Law 3852/2010). The secretary annuls the act or decision if it is proved to be illegal.

 

311.     The Secretary of the Decentralised Administration may also, ex officio, annul any decision of the bodies of the local authorities and their legal entities, for reasons of legality, within two months from the publication or the adoption of the decision (art.226 of Law 3852/2010).

 

312.     In addition, anyone who has a legitimate interest may, through the exercise of a special administrative appeal, challenge on grounds of legality the decisions of the collective or unilateral bodies of the local authorities and their legal entities before the Secretary of the Decentralised Administration, within a period of fifteen days from the publication of the decision or its posting on the internet website of the local entity, or from its notification or after having received full knowledge of it.

 

313.     The Secretary shall decide on the appeal within an exclusive period of two months from the date of the appeal´s submission. If the local decision is found to be unlawful, it shall be annulled (this provision does seem hardly compatible with art. 8.2). If the above deadline has expired without a decision being issued, then the appeal is deemed to have been implicitly rejected (Article 227 of Law 3852/2010). There is also a legal right to challenge the decisions of the Secretary of the Decentralised Administration on grounds of legality through an appeal at second instance. This appeal will be examined by a joint commission of three members (A member of the Legal Council of the State is the Chair, a representative of the Association of Local/Regional Authorities the second member and a representative of the local Bars Association the third member). This joint committee can annul the decision of the Secretary of the Decentralised Administration for reasons of legality (Art. 151-154 of the Municipal Code - law 3463/2006)

 

314.     However, the legislation in force also provides for an a priori control over certain acts and decisions of the local authorities, such as,  the approval by the Secretary of the Decentralised Administration of the decisions of the municipal councils on the Internal Service Bodies of local authorities (article 10 of Law 3854/2007), the approval of the decisions of the municipal councils on the establishment of associations of local authorities, the approval of traffic regulations, etc.

 

315.     During the consultation procedure, the Ministry of Interior indicated that the decisions approving acts of local authorities by the state body relate exclusively to specific acts that fall within the exercise of purely state powers that have been transferred by the legislator to local authorities, in order to ensure the unity of the powers exercised throughout the territory.

 

316.     During the consultation procedure, the National Delegation highlighted that although the state supervision is essential, which is often perceived as excessive or overly centralised for the National Delegation, some controls go beyond legality, entering the domain of expediency, which contradicts the principle of self-government. Furthermore, the a priori control slows down the administrative efficiency and affects the principle of autonomy.

 

317.     In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that the situation in Greece is in partial compliance with the basic requirements of Article 8.2.

Article 8.3
Administrative supervision of local authorities' activities - Article ratified

Administrative supervision of local authorities shall be exercised in such a way as to ensure that the intervention of the controlling authority is kept in proportion to the importance of the interests which it is intended to protect.

As it has presented supra, the forms of administrative supervision are prescribed by positive legislation, and even have an explicit constitutional anchoring.

 

Moreover, the control or supervision from the State authorities is mainly a control of legality. The control of expediency is strictly limited to the implementation of “delegated tasks” and is allowed by the Charter itself.

 

A separate mention should be made to the control over the annual budgets of the local and regional authorities.

 

In this field, the “Financial Autonomy Observatory of Local Government” is a key body, set up in the Ministry of the Interior. It is operationally supported by the General Directorate of Local Government Finance and Development Policy. The main purpose of the Observatory is to monitor the preparation and proper execution of the local government budgets. The Observatory has the responsibility of providing an opinion on the realism and balance of the submitted draft budgets of the municipalities, regions and other legal entities of the local public sector.

 

This “Observatory” also monitors the execution of the annual budgets of the entities of the local government sub-sector, based on the approved Integrated Action Framework. The Observatory monitors the deviation of the execution of the annual budgets of the bodies of the sub-sector of Local Government from the objectives that have been set, in the applicable documents and plans.

 

There are other types of controls and “precautions” on the local budgets in terms of publicity, reporting, transparency, etc.

 

These controls may seem to be excessive, but they may be explained by the current, pressing situation that the country is going through. Moreover, the Council of State has declared that the fact that the local authorities must request an opinion of the Financial Autonomy Observatory when approving their budgets does not undermine the principle of self-government, because this opinion is not binding.[52]

 

Local representatives complained that many local decisions are checked for legality and also raised the issue about the intensity of control, which may be the case. However, this does not prove that the intervention of the controlling authority is not kept in proportion to the importance of the protected interest. In the past, it was not uncommon that local authorities would approve unbalanced or unrealistic budgets. Therefore, in the opinion of the rapporteurs, the present controls seek to attain a legitimate and compelling governmental interest.

 

In view of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with Article 8.3 of the Charter.

Article 9.1
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

Local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.

These two provisions will be examined jointly, since they are connected. This comprehensive analysis requires exploring four different aspects:

1. Constitutional provisions on local finances

 

There are several provisions in the GC that address the issue of the local finances. Thus, art. 102.2, first provision of the constitution proclaims that “Local government agencies shall enjoy administrative and financial independence…”.

For its part, art. 102.5 is a long provision that lays down important principles in this matter: first, that “the State shall adopt the legislative, regulatory and fiscal measures required for ensuring the financial independence and the funds necessary to the fulfilment of the mission and exercise of the competences of local government agencies…”; second, that “matters pertaining to the attribution and allocation, among local government agencies, of the taxes or duties provided in their favour and collected by the State shall be specified by law”.

Thirdly, art. 105.5 enshrines the key principle that “every transfer of competences from central or regional administrations of the State to local government also entails the transfer of the corresponding funds”. And, finally, “the law will regulate the matters pertaining to the determination and collection of local revenues directly from local government agencies”.

 

Apparently, the Charter inspired the constitutional reform of 2001, which introduced in art. 102.5 of the GC the principle of financial autonomy. During the consultation procedure, the national delegation pointed out its dissatisfaction with the limited statutory, financial and administrative autonomy of municipalities and regions.

 

2. Economic and political context

 

Any analysis of the local finances in a country must take into account the historical tradition, and the political and macroeconomic context. It is well known that Greece suffered a very hard financial and debt crisis in 2009-10, whose economic and social effects were devastating. Currently, Greece is subject to a long-term austerity and financial adjustment programme, monitored by the international financial institutions and the EU. As a consequence of this programme, public spending has faced significant cuts across all sectors, with a reduction of 32%. On top of that, the health crisis triggered by the Covid-pandemic further worsened the situation.

Apart from that, in the Stability Covenant with the EU there is ceiling in the annual increment of the total spending of the public sector (3%, maximum), which leaves a small room for manoeuvre in financial and public spending matters to the Government and the Parliament.

This radical situation has had a clear impact on the finances of local and regional authorities. In a nutshell, the funding of local and regional authorities went down by 60%, as compared to pre-crisis figures. The global mass of finances of the local authorities was dramatically reduced: from an overall figure of €6,2 billion before the crisis, the figure went down to €2,5 billion, after the crisis.

A recent law has set an overall threshold of €3,2 billion. Therefore, the figures are slowly recovering but are still very far away from pre-crisis “normality”. On top of that, local leaders reported, the annual funding allocated to the local authorities certainly gets higher every year but is smaller than the inflation rate. For instance, for 2025 the total State funding was increased in 2.1%, but the inflation rate is higher. Consequently, the mass of State funding is smaller in “real” terms and produce a loss of “purchasing power” for the local authorities.

 

3.  Overall description of the sources of financing

 

Municipal and regional revenues are divided into ordinary and extraordinary revenues. Ordinary revenues derive from:

 

-       resources allocated to them by the State, i.e. Central Autonomous Funds (CAF),

-       income from movable and immovable property,

-       charges, fees and entitlements,

-       local taxes and contributions.

 

Extraordinary revenues derive from:

 

-       Loans, donations, bequests and legacies,

-       Sale and use of assets,

-       Participation in business activities,

-       Administrative fines and penalties,

-       Any other source.

 

Most of these types of revenues are presented in more detail in the following headings. For this reason, the rapporteurs should briefly refer here to local government properties and assets as a source of income (mainly for municipalities).

 

Properties and assets may be a source of income for local authorities. As a rule, all municipal movable and immovable property belonging to the municipalities and to the regions has to be registered, and municipalities and regions, must have their own register of real estate.

 

For what concerns the “immovable property” (real estate), there are three subgroups of assets here (a) Public (municipal) Property (for instance, streets, squares, etc.); (b) Private property (assets that are not used by the public or connected with the public services) and (c) Pastures available to municipalities for exploitation and used solely for meeting the need of livestock. This, of course, only happens in rural areas.

 

This real estate properties may be leased, rented or sold, following the applicable procedures and safeguards. For instance, the sale of property is only allowed when the sale results in gains for the local authority.

 

Similar arrangements and rules on the protection of their properties apply to the Regions. The regional immovable property includes private immovable property (buildings hosting the regional services, regional roads, etc).

 

For what concern movable property: apart from immovable property, cash in banks, securities, machinery and equipment are part of the municipal and regional movable property which is registered and managed according to the applicable provisions. This property may also generate revenues (for instance, interests from bank deposits).

 

European funding is also an important source of funding for local authorities (Cohesion Fund and others). [53] The regions administer the financial resources coming from the European funds, and they may also apply for loans of the European Investment Bank.

 

Local and regional authorities are free to approve their own annual budget and are free to identify the priorities in their spending, with the special features that have been mentioned below.

 

4. Preliminary assessment of the local and regional finances

 

A general assessment of the respect of art. 9.1 and 9.2 of the Charter allows to draw some conclusions:

 

First, there is a structural problem of under-financing for local and regional authorities. This has been explained to the delegation by all local leaders and representatives. The Ministry of finance representatives conceded that local authorities suffer from a structural problem of lack of funds, coupled with the deep economic crisis.

 

Second, there has been a notable reduction in the overall volume of funding allocated to the local authorities. The Kallikratis reform (2010) introduced important changes, there was an increase in revenues, but currently the local and regional authorities receive a total amount to €3,2 billion per year, while before the crisis this figure was €8.5 billion. (see above). As a result, many municipalities have real difficulties to close their budgets (which need to reflect a balance between the revenues and the expenses).

 

Third, the financing of municipalities consists mainly of funds that are managed and transferred by the State (see below). The overall level of these transfers and funds is decided every year by a Ministerial Order, so it can change from year to year. These funds cover basically the operational costs of the local authorities but leave a small margin for investment projects.

 

Fourth, local and regional authorities demand recurrently more and more resources to the State. The association “KEDE” (see below) is constantly requesting to enhance the resources that they need to discharge their tasks and competences.

 

Fifth, island and touristic municipalities claim recurrently that their specific needs are not taken into account correctly. Seasonality is not taken into account in the calculation of the funds they receive, they claim. Local representatives put the example of the island of Mikonos. This island has an “official” or permanent population of 10,000 inhabitants. However, during the touristic season it receives thousands of people, mainly tourists (with a peak of up to 250,000 people in the middle of summer).

 

The local authority receives State funding that is calculated on the basis of the “legal” or permanent population, but in reality, the local entity must deliver services for 250,000 people (waste collection, streets and parks cleaning, water supply, wastewater depuration, etc.). There is a clear gap between the “theoretical” funding that is calculated by the State and the real or actual expenses that the municipality must face to meet the needs of this seasonal “over-population”.

 

Local representatives also complained about the fact that tourism is hit by different taxes and fees, but these taxes and fees are collected by the State and almost no money that is generated in the municipality remains in the municipality. This point will be addressed in the following point, below.

 

Summing up, all the stakeholders met by the delegation have recognised that in Greece the local and regional authorities have a structural problem of underfunding. In addition, most of their revenues come from funds and transfers that are awarded by the State. Consequently, these revenues cannot be characterised as “financial resources of their own”, while they are often insufficient, unpredictable, and not aligned with transferred responsibilities, according to the National Delegation. During the consultation procedure, the National Delegation further added that the financial and functional autonomy of local authorities in Greece has some limitations mostly due to financial dependence and excessive supervision from the central Government.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece does not comply with Articles 9.1 and 9.2 of the Charter.

Article 9.2
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

Local authorities' financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution and the law.

Consult reply indicated at article 9.1

Article 9.3
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

Part at least of the financial resources of local authorities shall derive from local taxes and charges of which, within the limits of statute, they have the power to determine the rate.

All the interlocutors and local representatives met by the delegation during the two visits joined in the same statement: in Greece, local taxation is very low, and its weight in the overall financing of local authorities is marginal. Different reasons explain this situation: (a) the strongly unitary and centralist nature of the country; (b) there is a constitutional reservation of parliamentary law for all tax-related matters. Taxation is an exclusive competence of the national parliament; (c) the hectic economic situation and the national programme of recovery: the central government wants to be in full command of the level of tax pressure on the country; (d) the Constitution provides for the local government financial autonomy, but fiscal autonomy is not even an issue.

 

Within this context, the State enacts legislation and provides for some sources of revenue (taxes) in favour of Local Authorities. In addition, local authorities have the possibility of establishing regulatory acts and imposing fees, contributions and entitlements. These revenues according to their legal status (taxes, fees, entitlements and contributions)[54] may be used by local authorities either to balance the costs of the services provided or for general municipal purposes. For local authorities, making use of the sources of revenue through taxes can be either discretionary or mandatory.

 

(1) Compensatory fees, discretionary fees and entitlements

 

There are different types of local fees at the disposal of the municipalities. Municipalities impose them to meet the costs of the services that they provide to the local citizens (such as the cleaning of streets or public spaces, water consumption or irrigation). These fees are called “compensatory fees”, which may be obligatory or discretionary.

 

The revenues generated by such fees are strictly earmarked for specific purposes, that is, for financing the costs of the local services delivered.

 

The law provides for different types of compensatory fees, such as:

 

-       fees for water supply, irrigation and drainage,

-       fees for Cleaning and lighting services,

-       fees for the use of public spaces, for the permanent or temporary use of streets, pavements, squares (for instance, terraces of private bars and restaurants), etc.

-       parking fees for vehicles in controlled public parking zones,

-       entitlements[55] for the use of municipal slaughterhouses,

-       entitlements for the use of public areas of pasture,

-       entitlements or fees for the use of cemeteries (tombs, etc.),

-       fees for the value of crude industrial mineral quarrying.

 

On the other hand, local authorities are entitled to impose local “discretionary” compensatory fees for services or local works which contribute to the improvement of the quality of life, the development of the local area and the provision of better services to citizens (for instance, a municipality builds or refurbishes a sidewalk, in which case it can distribute the cost of the public works among the owners of the buildings facing the sidewalk).

 

(2) Taxes, Fees, Entitlements and Contributions

 

Taxes, fees and entitlements enacted in favour of local authorities are the following ones:

 

-       The real estate fee,[56] imposed on immovable property within the municipal boundaries, the amount of which is decided by a municipal council decision, as specified by law

-       A discretionary tax on electrified sites, the imposition of which depends on the discretion of the local authority and is imposed at electrified sites in general,

-       Fees for publicity within the municipal boundaries, the amount of which is determined by the municipalities.

-       In addition, the following fees are levied on either a mandatory or discretionary basis:

-       Residence fees at hotels, levied on all types of hotel accommodation (hotels, motels, campings, etc),

-       Fees for the gross income of clubs, restaurants and stores, [57]

-       Fees for trading mineral drinking water, which is a tax on transactions,

-       Fees for the sale of aggregate and quarry products.

In recent years, "Compensatory benefits" have been instituted as revenues of the Municipalities, for the functioning of facilities or activities that cause nuisance to the local community. Such cases are the following:

 

-       Payment of municipal fees to the municipalities hosting immigrant accommodation units.

-       Special fee to municipalities for areas where renewable energy projects are installed.

-       Compensatory benefit to municipalities hosting waste treatment facilities and sanitary landfills.

-       Tax on advertising revenue made on buses and bus shelters.

-       Fee for the collection and burial of dead animals.

 

Taxes, fees, entitlements and contributions are collected either by the local authorities themselves, or by other legal entities (such as public electricity companies) on behalf of the local authorities. However, some of them are collected by the State, and subsequently allocated to the local authorities by ministerial decisions.

 

Such taxes and fees may include fees for carrying out entertainment games, fees for decommissioned ships, or fines for violating the Highway Code and fines for building violations.

 

As seen supra, most of the “local taxation” in reality consists mainly of levies and rights that do not have the real nature of a “tax”, but are “fees”, “charges” or “special contributions”, instead.

 

Local taxes and charges form a part of the financing system of local authorities, even if they have a modest relevance.  For some of them, municipalities may determine the rate, in line with another requirement of the Charter.

 

By contrast, Regions do not have the possibility to levy taxes, fees, charges and entitlements.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece partially complies with Article 9.3 of the Charter.

Article 9.4
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

The financial systems on which resources available to local authorities are based shall be of a sufficiently diversified and buoyant nature to enable them to keep pace as far as practically possible with the real evolution of the cost of carrying out their tasks.

The system of local self-government must be “sufficiently” diversified and buoyant. As the Contemporary Commentary clarifies “the diversification of income sources is crucial if local authorities are to maintain their autonomy during fluctuation in economic cycles. At the same time, income sources should be diverse to ensure local authorities’ resilience to external economic factors. Consequently, local authorities’ finances should not be based solely on taxes or transfers and should be bolstered by all possible sources of local income”. In addition, the systems of local finance should be “buoyant”, which means that “they should allow local finances to rise to meet the costs of the delivery of services, i.e. local finances should be able to adapt to new circumstances, needs and macroeconomic scenarios and be sufficient to cover service delivery”.

 

Based on the statements and written replies of the interlocutors met, the rapporteurs consider that the Greek system of local financing does not meet these requirements. First, the system of local revenues is not really “diversified”, in the sense that the most part of the local revenues come from a big Fund that is managed by the State.

 

And it is far from being buoyant because the level of the actual overall funding for LRA is much lower than pre-crisis levels; and the funding has not been increased in the same proportion as the tasks and responsibilities of the local authorities have expanded.

 

In lthe ight of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that the situation in Greece is not compliant with Article 9.4 of the Charter.

Article 9.5
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

The protection of financially weaker local authorities calls for the institution of financial equalisation procedures or equivalent measures which are designed to correct the effects of the unequal distribution of potential sources of finance and of the financial burden they must support. Such procedures or measures shall not diminish the discretion local authorities may exercise within their own sphere of responsibility.

 In Greece, there is no consolidated, systematic and transparent scheme identified as “financial equalisation” process or procedures. In reality, the State sets and manages different types of transfers and funds, whose overall effect aim at correcting the effect of the (potentially) unequal distribution sources of finance. An enumeration of those funds, transfers and programmes include:

 

(1) the “Sectoral Development Programme (SPD) of the Ministry of the Interior. [59] This programme was endowed with €508 million in the period 2021-2025, and finances projects in municipalities that are considered as “smart” or “green” development, among others.

 

(2) the “Antonis Tritsis” programme for development and solidarity in local authorities. This programme allows the Ministry of the Interior to finance or co-finance a number of investment projects belonging to eh priority axis of civil protection, quality of life, digital convergence or social cohesion

 

(3) The Special Municipal Support Programme “Filodimos II”. [60] This programme is also implemented by the Minister of the Interior. It finances projects, services and studies of municipalities related to local development and environmental protection, with the aim of (i.a.) improving infrastructures and increasing the employment level

 

(4) the “Recovery and resilience fund”. This programme is specifically designed for improving the road safety in the national and regional road networks. The purpose of this programme is to restore and refurbish the road network.

 

Therefore, one may understand that these funds and programmes may help the economically weakest municipalities to engage in investment projects that they could never face without the assistance of the State. In a way, they constitute “equivalent measures” in the wording and the spirit of art. 9.5 of the Charter. During the consultation procedure, the National Delegation pointed to insufficiency and outdatedness of the financial equalisation mechanism, as in their view the allocation criteria are not always clear and there is no permanent rules-based equalisation formula. They consider that the system fails to ensure equality and balanced territorial development, counter to the spirit of the article and a modern, transparent and objective equalisation framework, would better support both weaker and high need territories across the country.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece generally complies with Article 9.5 of the Charter.

Article 9.6
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

Local authorities shall be consulted, in an appropriate manner, on the way in which redistributed resources are to be allocated to them.

There is no institutionalised process for consultation or negotiation on financial matters, which is a key concern for the representatives of local government. However, a general pattern and environment of communication and consultation has been positively noted above, in connection with art. 4.6. and this environment is prolonged in the matter of financial resources.

 

Of course, the degree of consultation or negotiation is more limited in this area, since the Government has not the final say on many issues, but the Parliament, through the annual budget and different appropriations.

 

Some avenues for consultation, however, are expressly provided for. For instance, see below, the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece makes a proposal to the competent ministries on the manner in which the Central autonomous funds will be allocated among the different municipalities, based on the different physical, economic and social characteristics of these entities.

 

The same happens with the distribution of the Central Autonomous Funds (CAF) among the regions, that is decided by the ministries on the suggestion of the Union of Regions.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with Article 9.6 of the Charter.

Article 9.7
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

As far as possible, grants to local authorities shall not be earmarked for the financing of specific projects. The provision of grants shall not remove the basic freedom of local authorities to exercise policy discretion within their own jurisdiction.

As noted supra, the most important sources of financing for municipalities in Greece are the grants and transfers awarded by the State. The most important (apart from those mentioned at point 3.6.5) is the Central Autonomous Funds (CAF).

 

Its operation works separately for municipalities and for regions.

 

In the case of municipalities, the Central Autonomous Funds (CAF) are sources granted by the State Government on an annual basis to municipalities. They come from the following State budget resources: (a) Income tax for individuals and legal entities: a percentage of 19.5% of the total tax receipts: (b) Value added tax: a proportion that varies from 1 to 2% of the total tax receipts; and (c) The Single Property Ownership Tax (ENFIA): a percentage of 11.3% of the total tax receipts.

 

From these amounts, 1/3 of the above revenues is allocated to the municipalities to meet their investment costs; and the remaining revenues are allocated to them to cover their operational and other general costs.

 

Central Autonomous Funds are allocated according to the suggestions of the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece, based on the demographic, geomorphological, administrative, financial, social, environmental and cultural characteristics of the municipalities. In determining the actual allocation of these funds, the specific circumstances of insular and mountain municipalities are taken into serious consideration. The aim is that they should receive extra administrative support to assist them in meeting their operational needs.

 

The CAF sources are also granted by the state government to the regions on an annual basis, but in this case the funds come from the following state budget resources: (a) Income Tax for individuals and legal entities: a percentage of 4.2% of the total tax receipts; and (b) Value Added Tax: a percentage of 4% of the total tax receipts.

 

The amount of the funding required for meeting the regional operational and investment expenses is determined by a joint decision of the ministers of the Interior and of Economy and Finance, following the opinion of the Union of Regions, and based on the demographic, geo - morphological, administrative, financial, social, environmental and cultural characteristics of the regions with a view to alleviating disparities.

 

Apart from the CAF, the State has set up several funds and programmes of transfers that are managed by the competent ministries, which have a redistribution objective. These funds, however, are totally earmarked.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece partially complies with Article 9.7 of the Charter.

Article 9.8
Financial resources of local authorities - Article ratified

For the purpose of borrowing for capital investment, local authorities shall have access to the national capital market within the limits of the law.

 Les communes et les régions peuvent souscrire des emprunts auprès de l’État, d’établissements accrédités, d’institutions financières en Grèce ou à l’étranger, ainsi qu’auprès d’entités et organisations publiques, uniquement pour financer des investissements ou le remboursement de leurs dettes.

 

Deux conditions cumulatives doivent être remplies par la collectivité locale : a) d’une part, le coût annuel du service de la dette publique de la commune ou de la région ne doit pas excéder 20 % de ses recettes ordinaires annuelles ; b) d’autre part, l’endettement total de la commune ou de la région ne doit pas dépasser 60% de ses recettes totales.

 

À titre exceptionnel, les communes peuvent contracter des emprunts sans remplir lesdites conditions, dans les cas suivants :

 

-       incapacité à équilibrer le budget ;

-       octroi d’un prêt dans le cadre de programmes spéciaux ;

-       emprunts contractés pour des actions visant à améliorer l’efficacité énergétique ;

-       élaboration de plans d’urbanisme locaux ;

-       rénovation énergétique des bâtiments publics ;

-       refinancement d’emprunts déjà contractés.

 

Il est également prévu que les communes et les régions puissent bénéficier d’avances sur les Fonds Autonomes Centraux (FAC), sous réserve de remplir certains critères.

 

Par ailleurs, il convient de mentionner l’existence des « contrats de soutien financier ». Pour aider les entités surendettées du sous-secteur des collectivités locales, un « compte de soutien financier » a été mis en place auprès de la Caisse des dépôts et prêts.

 

Les entités qui ne parviennent pas à équilibrer leur budget ont accès à ce compte spécial, à condition de conclure un « contrat-programme de soutien financier » avec le ministre de l’Intérieur. Ce contrat doit définir les conditions de financement de la collectivité locale et les mesures qu’elle s’engage à prendre pour améliorer sa gestion et sa situation financière.

 

L’Observatoire de l’autonomie financière des collectivités locales est l’organisme chargé de suivre la mise en œuvre du contrat.

 

À la lumière de ce qui précède, les rapporteures concluent que la Grèce respecte l’article 9, paragraphe 8, de la Charte.

Article 10.1
Local authorities' right to associate - Article ratified

Local authorities shall be entitled, in exercising their powers, to co-operate and, within the framework of the law, to form consortia with other local authorities in order to carry out tasks of common interest.

In Greece, local authorities are entitled to co-operate among themselves in exercising their powers, and to form consortia with other local authorities in order to carry out tasks of common interest.

 

This issue is so important that it has constitutional relevance, something that is unusual in comparative constitutional law. Concretely, art. 102. Par. 3 of the GC provides that “The law may provide for compulsory or voluntary associations of local government agencies to execute works or render services or exercise competences belonging to local government agencies; these shall be governed by elected administrations”. Therefore, the “entitlement” that is enshrined in the Charter enjoys constitutional protection in the Hellenic Republic.

 

Indeed, there are multiple formulae to channel this cooperation. It may involve two local entities belonging to the same tier (for instance, municipalities) or involve the two tiers of government (region and municipality) or being even wider.

 

Concerning inter-municipal cooperation, the basic formula for cooperation are the “agreements”. Under this scheme, municipalities within the same Region or adjacent Municipalities, their Legal entities governed by Private Law and Associations of Municipalities may conclude inter-municipal cooperation agreements with each other in order to exercise or support the exercise of powers on behalf of their members.

 

Municipalities within the same Region and the said Region, Legal Entities and Associations in which any of the contacting parties may participate, can conclude, among them, inter-level cooperation agreements in order to perform or support the exercise of powers on behalf of one or more contracting parties.

 

For its part, cooperation across levels of local government is regulated and encouraged by the Law. [61] Cooperation including both tiers of local government is nowadays explicitly foreseen by law, providing for the (voluntary) establishment of cross-level “associations” (diavathmidiki sindesmi, Art. 105 Kallikratis reform Act). They can deal with public works, service provision, fulfilment of concrete tasks or implementation of development programmes and projects. For instance, in the Attica Region there is a special, obligatory cross-level “syndicate” for waste management. Inter-municipal “associations” (diadimotiki sindesmi) can also be created on a voluntary basis to deal with public works, service provision, fulfilment of concrete tasks or implementation of development programmes and projects. The law also offers a wide range of contracting and networking possibilities to both municipalities and regions.

 

The other formula for cooperation are the contracts. Here, municipalities and regions can also participate in “contracts of inter-municipal or cross-level cooperation”, in which one part can offer support to the other part and/or fulfil some of its tasks (Art. 99 Kallikratis reform Act). In reality, the participation in such contracts is open to a plethora of entities and bodies: municipalities, regions, associations of municipalities, networks of municipalities and regions, KEDE and ENPE and other legal entities governed by public law.

 

Quite common are the so-called “programmatic contracts” (Art. 100 of the Kallikratis law, programmatikes simvasis), related to concrete projects (e.g., development projects, construction, etc.), in which not only local but also other public authorities (including universities) and public sector entities (public companies, etc.) can take part. Finally, municipalities and regions can also be members of more informal cooperative schemes, such as “networks” (Art. 101 Kallikatis Law, diktia) with goals of public interest (including networks with foreign local governments).

 

Contracts for the design and implementation of projects, development plans and the provision of services are subject in certain cases to a pre-contractual control of legality conducted by the Court of Audit. For instance, pre-contractual controls of legality are conducted in respect of contracts, with cost estimates of over one million (€1,000,000), not including VAT. [62]

 

In sum, the entitlement referred to in Art. 10.1 of the Charter is recognised by the constitution and regulated and encouraged by the law. In practice, there are several forms of cooperation, involving all the local and regional authorities, and their subsidiary organisations.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece complies with Article 10.1 of the Charter.

Article 10.2
Local authorities' right to associate - Non ratified

The entitlement of local authorities to belong to an association for the protection and promotion of their common interests and to belong to an international association of local authorities shall be recognised in each State.

Cet article n’a pas été ratifié par la Grèce. Au cours de la procédure de consultation, la délégation nationale a souligné que, selon elle, cela reflète une approche historiquement centralisée de la coopération internationale, mais que dans la pratique, les municipalités et les régions poursuivent leurs coopérations.

 

L’analyse de cette disposition porte sur deux aspects distincts : d’une part, le droit des collectivités locales d’adhérer à une association en vue de protéger et de promouvoir leurs intérêts communs ; d’autre part, le droit d’adhérer à une association internationale de collectivités locales.

 

En ce qui concerne le premier aspect, ce droit est pleinement reconnu par la loi grecque et pleinement opérationnel dans la pratique. En Grèce, il existe deux principales associations nationales de collectivités locales : l’une pour les communes, l’autre pour les régions.

 

L’association nationale des communes est l’« Union centrale des communes de Grèce » (en grec : « KEDE »). Il s’agit d’une personne morale dotée de la pleine personnalité juridique agissant en tant qu’organisme de droit public et représentant le premier niveau des collectivités locales (les communes). Le décret présidentiel no 197/1978 a créé la KEDE, actualisé ensuite par le décret présidentiel no 75/2011. Le siège de la KEDE se situe à Athènes[63].

 

Les principaux objectifs de la KEDE sont les suivants : promouvoir et soutenir les communes ; encourager la coopération entre collectivités locales ; coopérer avec l’administration centrale sur toute question liée à la décentralisation ; fournir un soutien technique aux communes (par exemple, pour la soumission de propositions dans le cadre de projets financés par l’Union européenne) ; et participer à des organisations européennes et internationales représentant les intérêts des collectivités locales.

 

Comme mentionné précédemment, la KEDE est l’interlocuteur naturel du gouvernement pour toute question concernant les communes. La KEDE entretient actuellement un excellent climat de dialogue et de consultation avec le gouvernement et les principaux ministères centraux (Intérieur, Finances, Affaires maritimes).

 

Pour sa part, l’association nationale des régions est l’« Association des régions grecques » (en grec : Ένωση Περιφερειών Ελλάδας, « ENPE »). Il s’agit d’une personne morale dotée de la pleine personnalité juridique agissant en tant qu’entité de droit privé, créée et fonctionnant dans le but d’organiser la coopération, la promotion et la représentation des régions. Toutes les régions du pays doivent participer à l’ENPE par l’intermédiaire de leurs représentants[64].

 

L’ENPE est également l’interlocuteur naturel du gouvernement pour toute question concernant les régions. L’ENPE entretient actuellement, elle aussi, un excellent climat de dialogue et de consultation avec le gouvernement et les ministères centraux concernés.

 

Il peut donc être conclu que cette première partie de l’article 10, paragraphe 2, de la Charte est respectée en Grèce, tant en droit qu’en pratique.

 

Comme indiqué ci-dessus, la seconde partie de cette disposition concerne le droit des collectivités locales d’adhérer à une association internationale de collectivités locales. À cet égard, il convient de rappeler que la Grèce n’a ni signé ni ratifié plusieurs instruments internationaux du Conseil de l’Europe dans ce domaine, tels que la Convention-cadre européenne sur la coopération transfrontalière des collectivités ou autorités territoriales (STE no 106), ni aucun de ses trois protocoles (voir supra, point 1).

 

En outre, il semble exister une certaine incohérence entre la position officielle de la Grèce sur cette question et la pratique.

 

En ce qui concerne le premier point, la délégation a demandé expressément au ministre de l’Intérieur les raisons pour lesquelles la Grèce n’avait pas signé (au minimum) l’instrument international mentionné ci-dessus. Sa réponse a été la suivante : « La Grèce a déclaré qu’en matière de coopération transfrontalière et interrégionale, elle se considère liée uniquement par la législation européenne et n’entend pas modifier cette position. Cela ne signifie toutefois pas que les pays et territoires d’outre-mer soient privés de la possibilité d’une coopération internationale (transnationale ou transfrontalière) ».

 

Cette déclaration laisse supposer que le ministère des Affaires étrangères reste prudent en raison de relations délicates avec un pays voisin. Cela pourrait également expliquer le refus de signer des traités de coopération transfrontalière, tout en mettant en œuvre des dispositifs européens de coopération transfrontalière de l’UE.

 

En pratique, cependant, les collectivités locales et régionales participent bien à des associations internationales. D’une part, les communes et les régions peuvent créer ou adhérer à des réseaux internationaux ou européens de collectivités locales et régionales, dans le but de promouvoir leurs objectifs de manière coordonnée et ciblée. D’autre part, elles peuvent également participer à des plateformes internationales et européennes multipartites, caractérisées par la diversité de leurs membres (par exemple, C40, 100 Resilient Cities, Cities Alliance).

 

À la lumière de ce qui précède, les rapporteures estiment que, même si la Grèce n’est pas liée juridiquement par l’article 10, paragraphe 2, de la Charte, elle en respecte de facto les exigences fondamentales. Elles encouragent donc les autorités grecques à ratifier cette disposition.

Article 10.3
Local authorities' right to associate - Article ratified

Local authorities shall be entitled, under such conditions as may be provided for by the law, to co-operate with their counterparts in other States.

In Greece there are many possibilities of international cooperation (transnational and cross‑border) at the disposal of local and regional authorities. Among which stand:

 

Programmes and Initiatives of International and European Organisations

 

The Municipalities and the Regions may participate in different initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors, the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), in EU programmes such as URBACT, INTERREG, etc. or programs of the Council of Europe (ex.: Intercultural Cities), and other international organisations (ex.: UNESCO Learning Cities network).

 

Town-Twinnings and International Networks and platforms (see, precedent point)

 

Municipalities may enter into town-twinning protocols with other cities with a view to promoting economic, cultural, educational and social relations and building and developing close and friendly relations.

 

European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation

 

Municipalities, Regions and other Public Sector Bodies, including the Decentralised Administrations, may participate in a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) in order to facilitate and promote cross-border, transnational and/or interregional cooperation.

 

Mission exchanges and events

 

Municipalities and Regions can also organise cultural, artistic and sporting events and take part in mission exchanges to address issues of common interest.

 

Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding

 

Municipalities may sign Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding on matters of mutual interest, as well as participate in international solidarity actions, in particular, in cases of natural disasters.

 

This form of cooperation must be approved by an Inter-ministerial Tripartite Committee, which includes representatives of both KEDE and ENPE. Requests must meet different conditions. Between 2006 and 2023, this committee has approved hundreds of international partnerships for municipalities[65] and for regions. [66]

 

The case of Athens is exemplary, as Athens belongs to all the major international networks of cities and mayors: C40, Eurocities.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs conclude that Greece complies with Article 10.3 of the Charter.

Article 11
Legal protection of local selfgovernment - Article ratified

Local authorities shall have the right of recourse to a judicial remedy in order to secure free exercise of their powers and respect for such principles of local self-government as are enshrined in the constitution or domestic legislation.

In Greece, local and regional authorities, in order to defend their interests, have the right to appeal and file petitions for the annulment of administrative acts before the competent courts to secure the free exercise of their powers.

 

The analysis of the legal protection of local/regional self-government in Greece must consider two different aspects: on the one hand, the access of such entities to the Constitutional Court to defend the principles of local self-government, as enshrined in the Charter or in the Greek Constitution; on the other hand, the access of local authorities to regular and administrative courts.

 

Concerning the first question: it is well known that in Greece there is no constitutional court. Prima facie, this could be seen as an unsatisfactory situation or an obstacle to the possibility to declare that a given statute or parliamentary legislation violates the provisions of the GC pertaining to self-government (for instance, Arts. 102 or 103) or the Charter itself.

 

However, this is not so. In fact, there are other European countries that do not have a constitutional court, for instance the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, and there is always a legal remedy to annul or to depurate the legal order from unconstitutional statutory provisions. In Greece, this may be raised not in a direct legal action in the (non-existent) Constitutional Court, but in a diffuse and incidental manner by the courts.

 

Thus, if a piece of legislation violates the constitution (Art. 101, 102) this law can be declared invalid, null or unconstitutional by the courts, since there is in place a system of diffuse unconstitutional review of the laws. The courts do not implement an abstract control of constitutionality, but the application of the law to a given case. Thus, every judge has the power and the obligation not to apply a statute or a piece of legislation that is contrary to the Constitution. Of course, the system of judicial appeals may eventually bring the case to the courts of last resort, which will adjudicate finally the dispute.

 

In this vein, different pieces of legislation have been declared “unconstitutional” for violating Arts. 101 or 102 of the Constitution (see below). However, is it not possible to declare “unconstitutional” a piece of legislation because it violates the Charter: only violation of the Greek Constitution can lead to the declaration of unconstitutional a piece of legislation.

 

Concerning the access to the courts, Greece follows the French tradition in the sense that there is a system of “regular” courts, whose apex is the Supreme Court, and a separate system of “administrative courts”, whose apex is the Council of State.

 

The defence of the principles of local self-government (or of the constitutional provisions of this matter) in the courts is twofold: on the one hand, local authorities do enjoy locus standi to go to the regular courts (juridiction judiciaire) in order to defend their rights, properties and interests, just as any other juridical (or “moral”) person would do. This is especially the case when a municipality (for instance) engages in private or civil law relations with individuals or firms.

 

But the forensic scenario that is more interesting for the purpose of this report is the access of the local authorities to the administrative courts, where they can invoke the principles of local self‑government, either as they are enshrined in the GC, or as they are laid down in the Charter. In particular, the scenario we are referring to is the case when a local authority acts as a plaintiff in the administrative courts.

 

For instance, a municipality may file a legal action (annulment action) in the administrative jurisdiction by which it may challenge a decision, an act or regulation issued by the State authorities (Government, ministries, etc) and in these legal proceedings the local entity may, eventually, invoke the principles of local self-government.

 

The bunch of decisions rendered by the Greek administrative courts form an interesting case-law, in which the Council of State and other courts have interpreted and eventually applied the legislation on local authorities, as well as the constitutional provisions on decentralisation, or the Charter itself. The delegation did not hear any complaint from local leaders or representatives regarding this state of facts.

 

Thus, in Greece the Council of State has played an important role in the protection and defence of the principle of local autonomy, as it is the competent court to address local authorities’ requests for review of administrative acts that affect them. According to its case-law, the principle of local self-government is quite enforceable within the existing constitutional and legislative framework, and the Council of State interprets the GC in conjunction with the Charter.

 

As to the invocability of the Charter in courts, and its executive character, there are many cases in which the Charter is directly invocable, usually those that concern municipalities’ matters. However, it is not considered to be a self-executing treaty, as the Charter requires legislative implementation.

 

In Greece, local and regional authorities can certainly appeal to the administrative jurisdiction if they consider that a decision or an administrative regulation adopted by the central government is illegal. In practice this is very common. Local and regional authorities enjoy full judicial protection concerning acts of the central government.

 

Therefore, the municipalities and regions do have direct access to the Council of State to protect their rights, competences, and the principle of local autonomy. In this sense, the Council of State handed down some charts and factual information to the delegation, showing numerical aspects of this right.

 

For instance, between 2015 and 2024, there were 1596 applications filed in the Council of State by the municipalities, with a peak in 2017 (with 216 legal challenges). As a result of those challenges, the number of those that were admitted and finally adjudicated totalled 193 rulings (between 2004 and 2022). As can be seen, this is a really high number of appeals and legal proceedings, which testifies to the frequency and normality with which local entities go before the Council of State.

 

During the consultation procedure, the National Delegation specified that Greece may not have separate Constitutional Court, but except from the Council of State, there is the Court of Audits that proceeds with the review of the constitutionality of laws. In this framework, in their view, procedure complexity, long timelines, high costs and political sensitivities discourage municipalities and regions from invoking them frequently.

 

It must be clarified that not all these cases raised issues of violations of the principles of local self-government, only a minority did. And among them, the Charter is not so frequently invoked in administrative litigation. Instead, plaintiffs rely more directly on the constitutional provision in the matter. The Charter is usually a supporting argument.

 

In chronological order, the first relevant ruling of the Council of State in the matter of local government was its decision 3440/1998 (plenary). In this ruling, the High Court confirmed that the Charter, at that time, did not apply to the second-tier local authorities.

 

Since that time, the Council of State has rendered important rulings. The high number of those rulings prevent us to make a thorough presentation of all of them. However, it is possible to mention some of them:

 

(a) Judgement Nº 545/2001, of the 3rd Chamber, dealt with a hot issue: the application of the Charter (Art. 5) to the compulsory amalgamations that were decided at the time. The Court confirmed that Art. 5 could not be invoked by the plaintiffs, since Greece had made a reservation to the said provision.

 

(b) another relevant case was adjudicated by judgements 37-40/2013, where the plenary dismissed the claim that the Kallikratis reform violated several articles of the Charter.

 

(c) Judgement 15/2015, the Plenary adjudicated a dispute concerning the status of the municipal police officers. Without referring to the Charter, the court ruled that the transformation of the municipal police and its reassignment to the State police did not violate Art. 102 of the Greek Constitution. In this ruling the Court made a fundamental difference between local autonomy (which involves the power to regulate) and local self-government: the Greek local authorities have self-government, but not local autonomy, because they lack regulatory powers, and what they have is the power to decide on local affairs through their own bodies within the general provisions of the laws.

 

(d) a case that triggered a lot of political and popular attention was the one adjudicated by the judgement Nº 2377/2022, of the plenary (referred to at point 3.2.2, supra). In these proceedings, some local councillors filed actions for annulment against acts of the city council and the mayor concerning the election and appointment of member of other collective bodies of the municipality. The challenge went on to question the constitutionality of the Act 4555/2018, under which the local elections of 26 May 2019 were held.

 

This Act introduced, right after those local elections, a new system of “governance” of the municipalities, depriving the city council of important responsibilities, that were transferred to the Municipal Financial Committee. Among other arguments, the plaintiffs invoked Art. 3.2 of the Charter. The Plenary declared that the contested Act had superveniently altered the decisional context that the voters had in mind when casting their ballots, and for this reason it was contrary to the provisions of Arts. 5.1, art. 52 and 102.2 of the Constitution.

 

(e) Finally, reference should also be made to Judgment 283/2023 and judgment 2377/2022 (both of the Plenary), regarding the legislative amendment of local authorities’ internal structure and competences These are examples of a declaration of illegality of a State decision or regulation by the Council of State for violation of the constitutional principle of local autonomy and for the violation of the Charter.

 

Another interesting feature of the Greek legal system is that it allows the associations of local and regional authorities to contest a law in a judicial proceeding if they consider that this law infringes or limits local self-government.

 

Another related issue is the principle of subsidiarity. It is interesting to see whether it is respected in Greece, or whether it is frequently invoked in court proceedings opposing local and regional authorities versus the State. According to the Council of State, the principle of subsidiarity is respected in Greece. However, it is not common to be invoked in court proceedings opposing local and regional authorities versus the State.

 

Regarding the most controversial issues related to local and regional self-government from the Council of State standpoint, these issues are related to the financial autonomy of local and regional authorities, as well as issues that have been raised regarding the new electoral system (some relevant cases are still pending).

 

A final reference should be made here to the advisory functions of the Council of State. In Greece, the Council of State has only competence at the drafting of the presidential decrees. In that frame and taking into consideration all Greek legislation relevant to a decree, it is possible for the Council of State to invoke the Charter in the exercise of the advisory functions, but this has not happened so far.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteurs consider that Greece complies with Article 11 of the Charter.

Article 12.3
Undertakings - Non ratified

Any Party may, at any later time, notify the Secretary General that it considers itself bound by any paragraphs of this Charter which it has not already accepted under the terms of paragraph 1 of this article. Such undertakings subsequently given shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification, acceptance or approval of the Party so notifying, and shall have the same effect as from the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of the receipt of the notification by the Secretary General.

226. As noted above in various paragraphs, the Instrument of Ratification of the Charter by Greece was deposited on 6 September 1989. The Charter entered into force in respect of that country on 1 January 1990. On the ground of Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Charter, Greece declared itself not to be bound by: Article 5 Article 7, paragraph 2; Article 8, paragraph 2; Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Charter. 227. Moreover, while an explicit declaration according to Article 13 of the Charter is not included in the ratification instrument, as indicated above, Article 2 of Law 1850/1989 establishes that the implementation of the Charter is restricted to local authorities of the first tier. 228. In the written answers to the rapporteurs’ questions the Ministry of the Interior informed the rapporteurs that, for the time being, it is still not possible to ratify all the above mentioned provisions. The only provision on which the reservation could be lifted, according to the competent Directorate of the Ministry of Interior could be Article 8, para. 2, as control, which is strictly limited to their legality and not to their expediency, is exercised over local government actions. 229. Regarding the other provision, the Ministry of the Interior pointed out that: “- Art.5 Any change of the administrative boundaries of a municipality may take place under certain conditions provided for in articles 2-5 of the Law 3463/2006 (“Code of Municipalities and Communities”), Articles 10-13 of the same law, and Article 5 (redefinition of boundaries of municipal communities within municipalities of over 100.000 inhabitants, transfer of a local community to a neighbouring municipality) and Article 6 (establishment of a local community from a settlement which is defined in the census as independent) of Law 3852/2010 (“the Kallikratis reform”), with different regulatory acts, as the case may be, and based on the opinion of the local authorities involved. Holding local referendums is provided for in Article 216 of Law 3463/2006; however, in practice, referendums have not been held, pending the issuance of a Presidential Decree, which will provide for legality and other organisational issues; - Article 7, par.2: The Law 3852/2010 (article 92 in relation to municipalities and article 181 in relation to regions) and provisions which settle specific issues are mainly issued on the initiative of the Ministries of Finance and of Labour. Α payment is provided for the heads of the regions, the deputy heads of the regions, the mayors and the deputy mayors, as well as representation allowances are provided for the presidents of local and municipal communities. However, such payments or allowances are not provided for the municipal or the regional councillors. For any loss of profit or fees in respect of services provided, court action should be taken; […] - Article 10, par 2: The possibilities for municipal authorities to engage in international co-operation are provided for in Articles 219-221 of Law 3463/2006 and in Articles 99-101 (inter-municipal or intra-level cooperation, contract plans, and networks of municipalities and of regions) of law 3852/2010. Articles 202 (networks) and 203 (international co-operation at the regional level) of the same law provide for such cooperation possibilities especially for the regions. However, at both tiers of local government , networks are set up in Greece in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code (obligatory establishment of a non-profit partnership under civil law ) while any kind of international co-operation is subject to the approval of the special inter- ministerial committee in accordance with law 3345/2005. This special committee is set up on a joint decision of the Ministers of Interior and of Foreign Affairs. Concerning the collective organs of the two tiers of local government, respective international co-operation possibilities are also provided, without the terms provided for in Law 3345/2005 (Article 2 of the Presidential Decree 74/2011 on the Union of Regions and article 1 of the Presidential Decree 75/2011 on the Regional Unions of Municipalities and the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece).” 230. The Ministry confirmed as well that “in relation to Recommendation 247 (2008) and the ratification of the Charter of Local Self-Government, we note that according to Article 2 of Law 1850/1989, the scope of the Charter does not concern the second tier of local government.” 231. In consequence, this report would recommend the Greek authorities to consider revisiting the advisability of reviewing some of the declarations made at the time of ratification. For instance, the withdrawal of the declaration made in connection with Article 5 and Article 8, para. 2 of the Charter should not represent a serious problem. 232. In addition, the rapporteurs recommend the Greek authorities to extend the scope of the Charter to the second tier of local government (regions) as after the Kallikratis reform no doubts remain on their nature of self-government authorities, as we will point out below.

Article 12.2
Undertakings - Non ratified

Each Contracting State, when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, shall notify to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of the paragraphs selected in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

226. As noted above in various paragraphs, the Instrument of Ratification of the Charter by Greece was deposited on 6 September 1989. The Charter entered into force in respect of that country on 1 January 1990. On the ground of Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Charter, Greece declared itself not to be bound by: Article 5 Article 7, paragraph 2; Article 8, paragraph 2; Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Charter. 227. Moreover, while an explicit declaration according to Article 13 of the Charter is not included in the ratification instrument, as indicated above, Article 2 of Law 1850/1989 establishes that the implementation of the Charter is restricted to local authorities of the first tier. 228. In the written answers to the rapporteurs’ questions the Ministry of the Interior informed the rapporteurs that, for the time being, it is still not possible to ratify all the above mentioned provisions. The only provision on which the reservation could be lifted, according to the competent Directorate of the Ministry of Interior could be Article 8, para. 2, as control, which is strictly limited to their legality and not to their expediency, is exercised over local government actions. 229. Regarding the other provision, the Ministry of the Interior pointed out that: “- Art.5 Any change of the administrative boundaries of a municipality may take place under certain conditions provided for in articles 2-5 of the Law 3463/2006 (“Code of Municipalities and Communities”), Articles 10-13 of the same law, and Article 5 (redefinition of boundaries of municipal communities within municipalities of over 100.000 inhabitants, transfer of a local community to a neighbouring municipality) and Article 6 (establishment of a local community from a settlement which is defined in the census as independent) of Law 3852/2010 (“the Kallikratis reform”), with different regulatory acts, as the case may be, and based on the opinion of the local authorities involved. Holding local referendums is provided for in Article 216 of Law 3463/2006; however, in practice, referendums have not been held, pending the issuance of a Presidential Decree, which will provide for legality and other organisational issues; - Article 7, par.2: The Law 3852/2010 (article 92 in relation to municipalities and article 181 in relation to regions) and provisions which settle specific issues are mainly issued on the initiative of the Ministries of Finance and of Labour. Α payment is provided for the heads of the regions, the deputy heads of the regions, the mayors and the deputy mayors, as well as representation allowances are provided for the presidents of local and municipal communities. However, such payments or allowances are not provided for the municipal or the regional councillors. For any loss of profit or fees in respect of services provided, court action should be taken; […] - Article 10, par 2: The possibilities for municipal authorities to engage in international co-operation are provided for in Articles 219-221 of Law 3463/2006 and in Articles 99-101 (inter-municipal or intra-level cooperation, contract plans, and networks of municipalities and of regions) of law 3852/2010. Articles 202 (networks) and 203 (international co-operation at the regional level) of the same law provide for such cooperation possibilities especially for the regions. However, at both tiers of local government , networks are set up in Greece in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code (obligatory establishment of a non-profit partnership under civil law ) while any kind of international co-operation is subject to the approval of the special inter- ministerial committee in accordance with law 3345/2005. This special committee is set up on a joint decision of the Ministers of Interior and of Foreign Affairs. Concerning the collective organs of the two tiers of local government, respective international co-operation possibilities are also provided, without the terms provided for in Law 3345/2005 (Article 2 of the Presidential Decree 74/2011 on the Union of Regions and article 1 of the Presidential Decree 75/2011 on the Regional Unions of Municipalities and the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece).” 230. The Ministry confirmed as well that “in relation to Recommendation 247 (2008) and the ratification of the Charter of Local Self-Government, we note that according to Article 2 of Law 1850/1989, the scope of the Charter does not concern the second tier of local government.” 231. In consequence, this report would recommend the Greek authorities to consider revisiting the advisability of reviewing some of the declarations made at the time of ratification. For instance, the withdrawal of the declaration made in connection with Article 5 and Article 8, para. 2 of the Charter should not represent a serious problem. 232. In addition, the rapporteurs recommend the Greek authorities to extend the scope of the Charter to the second tier of local government (regions) as after the Kallikratis reform no doubts remain on their nature of self-government authorities, as we will point out below.

Article 12.1
Undertakings - Non ratified

Each Party undertakes to consider itself bound by at least twenty paragraphs of Part I of the Charter, at least ten of which shall be selected from among the following paragraphs:

 

– Article 2,

– Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2,

– Article 4, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4,

– Article 5,

– Article 7, paragraph 1,

– Article 8, paragraph 2,

– Article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3,

– Article 10, paragraph 1,

– Article 11.

226. As noted above in various paragraphs, the Instrument of Ratification of the Charter by Greece was deposited on 6 September 1989. The Charter entered into force in respect of that country on 1 January 1990. On the ground of Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Charter, Greece declared itself not to be bound by: Article 5 Article 7, paragraph 2; Article 8, paragraph 2; Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Charter. 227. Moreover, while an explicit declaration according to Article 13 of the Charter is not included in the ratification instrument, as indicated above, Article 2 of Law 1850/1989 establishes that the implementation of the Charter is restricted to local authorities of the first tier. 228. In the written answers to the rapporteurs’ questions the Ministry of the Interior informed the rapporteurs that, for the time being, it is still not possible to ratify all the above mentioned provisions. The only provision on which the reservation could be lifted, according to the competent Directorate of the Ministry of Interior could be Article 8, para. 2, as control, which is strictly limited to their legality and not to their expediency, is exercised over local government actions. 229. Regarding the other provision, the Ministry of the Interior pointed out that: “- Art.5 Any change of the administrative boundaries of a municipality may take place under certain conditions provided for in articles 2-5 of the Law 3463/2006 (“Code of Municipalities and Communities”), Articles 10-13 of the same law, and Article 5 (redefinition of boundaries of municipal communities within municipalities of over 100.000 inhabitants, transfer of a local community to a neighbouring municipality) and Article 6 (establishment of a local community from a settlement which is defined in the census as independent) of Law 3852/2010 (“the Kallikratis reform”), with different regulatory acts, as the case may be, and based on the opinion of the local authorities involved. Holding local referendums is provided for in Article 216 of Law 3463/2006; however, in practice, referendums have not been held, pending the issuance of a Presidential Decree, which will provide for legality and other organisational issues; - Article 7, par.2: The Law 3852/2010 (article 92 in relation to municipalities and article 181 in relation to regions) and provisions which settle specific issues are mainly issued on the initiative of the Ministries of Finance and of Labour. Α payment is provided for the heads of the regions, the deputy heads of the regions, the mayors and the deputy mayors, as well as representation allowances are provided for the presidents of local and municipal communities. However, such payments or allowances are not provided for the municipal or the regional councillors. For any loss of profit or fees in respect of services provided, court action should be taken; […] - Article 10, par 2: The possibilities for municipal authorities to engage in international co-operation are provided for in Articles 219-221 of Law 3463/2006 and in Articles 99-101 (inter-municipal or intra-level cooperation, contract plans, and networks of municipalities and of regions) of law 3852/2010. Articles 202 (networks) and 203 (international co-operation at the regional level) of the same law provide for such cooperation possibilities especially for the regions. However, at both tiers of local government , networks are set up in Greece in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code (obligatory establishment of a non-profit partnership under civil law ) while any kind of international co-operation is subject to the approval of the special inter- ministerial committee in accordance with law 3345/2005. This special committee is set up on a joint decision of the Ministers of Interior and of Foreign Affairs. Concerning the collective organs of the two tiers of local government, respective international co-operation possibilities are also provided, without the terms provided for in Law 3345/2005 (Article 2 of the Presidential Decree 74/2011 on the Union of Regions and article 1 of the Presidential Decree 75/2011 on the Regional Unions of Municipalities and the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece).” 230. The Ministry confirmed as well that “in relation to Recommendation 247 (2008) and the ratification of the Charter of Local Self-Government, we note that according to Article 2 of Law 1850/1989, the scope of the Charter does not concern the second tier of local government.” 231. In consequence, this report would recommend the Greek authorities to consider revisiting the advisability of reviewing some of the declarations made at the time of ratification. For instance, the withdrawal of the declaration made in connection with Article 5 and Article 8, para. 2 of the Charter should not represent a serious problem. 232. In addition, the rapporteurs recommend the Greek authorities to extend the scope of the Charter to the second tier of local government (regions) as after the Kallikratis reform no doubts remain on their nature of self-government authorities, as we will point out below.

ACCESSION

to the Council of Europe 9 August 1949

RATIFICATION

of the European Charter of Local Self-Government 6 September 1989

CONSTITUTION | NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Consistently with the Greek tradition of centralisation, the principle of local self-government is not included among the “Basic Provisions” of Part One of the Constitution.



27Ratified provision(s)
0Provision(s) with reservation(s)
6 Non ratified articles
16Compliant Provision(s)
7Partially Compliant Articles
6Non-compliant Provision(s)