ALTERNATIVE (NON-MILITARY) SERVICE IN GREECE: LEGAL REGULATION, JUDICIAL PRACTICE, AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

This article presents a comprehensive study of the institution of alternative (non-military) service in the Hellenic Republic—one of the few European countries where the right to conscientious objection to military service is explicitly enshrined at the constitutional level. The paper explores the historical and legal development of this institution, including the evolution of legislative regulation from 1977 to the present, and analyzes key legal acts, such as Law No. 3421/2005, as well as presidential decrees and ministerial decisions specifying the procedures for performing alternative service.Particular attention is paid to the case law of the Greek Council of State (ΣτΕ), which has played a central role in shaping the current understanding of the legal nature of alternative service and in defining the criteria under which a person may be recognized as a conscientious objector. The article also considers the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (notably the case “Tsirlis and Kouloumbas v. Greece”), the European Committee of Social Rights, and recommendations of theCouncil of Europe institutions regarding the compatibility of the Greek model with international human rights standards.The study highlights major challenges in the functioning of alternative service: excessive duration compared to compulsory military service, inadequate social protection, discriminatory legal provisions that exclude certain categories of citizens from accessing this right, and the possibility of forced return to military service in case of non-compliance. Special attention is given to the problematic nature of the suspension of alternative service during wartime and its compatibility with the principle of freedom of conscience.Based on a systemic analysis of the Greek experience, the article formulates a set of recommendations for Ukraine, which is currently undergoing reform of its own alternative service system. It outlines how the Greek case can serve as both a positive and cautionary example in the broader context of ensuring constitutional rights and fulfilling international human rights obligations.