APPEAL BY GREEK CITIZENS

‘BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE GREEK COURT OF JUSTICE CONCERNING 5G WIRELESS NETWORK

# To support this effort, go to gofunding campaign page:

PRESS RELEASE 

On 18 February 2025, seven Greek citizens filed an appeal before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against the decision of the Greek Council of State No. 1046/2024, published at the public hearing of 10 July 2024, which was issued on the case no. E2841/2020 on the application for annulment.

The pleas in law relied on concern the violation of Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

In particular:
1. According to the case-law of the ECHR, in cases concerning the protection of the environment and human health, where the competent national authorities infringe environmental legislation, they are deemed to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. , in particular Articles 2 and 8. In particular, the infringements of the legislation by the competent administrative authority which adopted the contested act, in particular the infringements of Directive 2001/42, the precautionary principle and Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention on public participation in the decision-making process, constitute a breach of Articles 2 and 8  of the European Convention on Human Rights. .

2. Taking into account the case-law judgments of the ECHR, these are also applicable in the case of exposure of the public to EM radiation resulting from the installation and operation of the 5G network, which (exposure) causes a risk to life. Moreover, no information was provided to the public regarding the above risks. Consequently, the installation and operation of the 5G network, as is apparent from the content of the contested act, infringes Article 2 of the contract.

3. Further, with regard to the violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), it follows from the case law of the ECHR that positive obligations are imposed on States with regard to the protection of the public from potentially dangerous activities. Accordingly, the Court’s case-law is also applicable to the case of exposure of the public to EM radiation resulting from the installation and operation of the 5G network, which (exposure) infringes the privacy and family life of the public. Consequently, the installation and operation of the 5G network, as provided for in the contested act, infringes Article 8 of the Convention.’