By Eirini Koutsoukou, LLM European Economic Law (University of Groningen) & LLM Public International Law (Democritus University of Thrace), koutsoukou.ir gmail.com

The main point of this article is to describe the ineffectively strict anti-Covid measures of the Greek government and analyse the subsequent human rights limitations. Initially, I will describe how Greece shifted from an unexpectedly successful pandemic treatment to continuously unsuccessful measures, e.g. compulsory movement notification, which not only deteriorate the already degenerated health and financial system, but foremost fail to meet the proportionality criteria. Moreover, I will analyse that the rigidness of such measures has resulted in the following paradox, i.e. the stricter the measures become, the worse the public health system gets. In conclusion, this article stresses the urgency to adopt alternative measures fulfilling the proportionality criteria due to the population’s exhaustion.

The Unexpectedly Successful Treatment

The unprecedented outbreak of the pandemic elucidates the level of (un)preparedness and weakness in national health systems. Especially for Greece, the first wave of the pandemic between March-July 2020 was acknowledged to having been treated effectively with pre-emptive measures which limited the spread of the virus. Regardless of the lacking appropriate health infrastructure, the Greek government initially confronted this challenge with success and received honorary comments, due to the lowest percentages of Covid cases in that period. For instance, from February 2020 until August 2020, the daily cases remained below 500. Yet, infection rates escalated abruptly from November 2020 onwards. Since then, average daily cases are approximately over 3000. 

The Greek Response

Concisely, the Greek government has adopted the following measures from the outbreak of the first wave until now, whereas some of them have become more stringent as of March 5th, 2021;

1. a) National and regional lockdowns depending on the average daily cases: Although Greece has imposed a general lockdown throughout its territory, in specific areas with intensified data, a stricter (local) lockdown has been applied, i.e. a person living in Athens cannot move to suburbs exceeding 2km from his residence.
2. b) Compulsory movement notification: Since March 2020, citizens are only allowed to move for specific reasons, e.g. doctor visits/pharmacy, groceries, bank, assisting people in need, physical activity, each of which codified with a specific number, e.g. doctor visits as '1', groceries as ‘2’ . In order to limit non-essential movements, the prior notification of movement via SMS/written document with personal details and address is compulsory. In response, citizens receive an automatic reply, which equals to movement permission. Moreover, citizens are obliged to carry the latter with them, otherwise they are charged €300, 00.
3. c) Movement within 2km: In addition, the Ministry of Civil Protection, has divided cities in ‘red’ and ‘orange’ regions depending on their infection rates, i.e. Athens has been declared a ‘red’ region and therefore citizens are allowed only to move twice a day for the aforementioned specific reasons and within a 2km distance. This restriction in conjunction with curfew and closure of grocery shops at 18.00 results in overcrowding, the avoidance of which is sought by any means.
4. d) Curfew from 21.00-05.00 (or from 19.00-05.00 in cities with the highest infection rate).
5. e) Closure of shops and schools: Although shops and schools adopted high hygiene measures, the continuously changing decisions on their opening/closure resulted in sharp criticism due to the government's drawbacks and inefficient financial support to SMEs.

One wonders why the situation deteriorated after the initial praises Greece received during the first wave of the pandemic. The answer is paradoxical; the strictness has indirectly resulted in this phenomenon. The implementation of preemptive measures was indeed successful and thus prepared satisfyingly the national health infrastructure. Moreover, the majority of Greeks were terrified of losing family members, especially the elderly, thus '[...] the traditional extended Greek family has not decomposed into isolated nuclear families, it has changed its configuration. Its morphological equivalent is the extended family system in the urban setting with a continuation of contacts with its network of kin [...]'.[1] Currently, the emergence of the UK and African variants and the continuous application of the same strict measures answer this concern, hence Greeks are exhausted from this excessive disproportion. Namely, the harder the measures get, the more public health degenerates. Therefore one questions why the same restrictions continue to apply since the scientific data demonstrate their failure.

What about Human Rights and Proportionality?

The imposition of emergency mechanisms to limit infections lead to various human rights limitations or derogations and as a result, the current pandemic highlights that States have two battles to confront, namely global health and human rights. As Antonio Guterres stresses:

 '[...] Human rights are our bloodline; [...] With the pandemic shining a spotlight on human rights, recovery gives us an opportunity to generate momentum for transformation. Now is the time to reset […]'.

Indicatively, the consecutive lockdown in Greece has affected:

1. Liberty and security (Article 5(2) of the Greek Constitution);[2]
2. Respect for private and family life (Article 9 of the Constitution);
3. Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the Constitution);
4. Freedom of movement and residence (Article 5(4) of the Constitution).

Human rights violations could be justified under the scheme of lawful derogation/limitation in state of emergency under the cumulative criteria of:

1. Not touching upon the core of rights, which constitutes an essential prerequisite in the EU legal order;[3]
2. Legal provision;
3. Corresponding to a legitimate aim;
4. Necessity in a democratic society/Proportionality.

In terms of ‘emergency state’,  Article 44(1) of the Constitution is suitable for treating natural disasters, socio-economic disruptions and other unexpected events, whereas the executive power adopts ‘Acts of Legislative Content’ are legally equal to the Parliament’s laws. The outbreak of the pandemic falls equals to ‘unexpected events’ and therefore, the implementation of consecutive ‘Acts of Legislative Content’ and ministerial decisions restricting various constitutional rights, have established an ‘atypical emergency law’ in the Greek legal order.

In conclusion, Greece’s failure to adapt to circumstances by applying the same harsh measures throughout the pandemic has degenerated the public health system. The austerity per se has exhausted the citizens, who have shown a general discipline. Greece’s shift from commendation to social outrage  demonstrates why States should be on alert and implement alternative measures fulfilling the proportionality criteria.