What did the Council of State decide on the NGO registries?
The Plenary of the Council of State examined three cases concerning the operation of the Registry of Greek and Foreign Non-Governmental Organisations and the Registry of Members of Non-Governmental Organisations under the Ministry of Migration and Asylum. The court held that paragraph 3 of article 78 of Law 4939/2022, which authorises regulation of the main NGO registry by ministerial decision, complies with article 43 paragraph 2 of the Constitution. In contrast, the majority found that paragraph 5 of the same article, which authorises a ministerial decision for the members registry, violates the same constitutional provision because the enabling law lacks the substantive conditions for enrolment and certification of individuals. The sessions took place on 26 June 2026, 29 June 2026 and 15 September 2026, with the cases heard on the supplementary docket of 26 June 2026. The court’s announcement sets out the precise holdings on both registries and the further questions sent to Luxembourg. The full decision details the distinction between the two registries and explains why only the members-registry clause failed the constitutional test on enabling provisions.
Which specific provisions were ruled unconstitutional?
The court identified three provisions that breach the freedom of association. First, article 3 paragraph 4 of the ministerial decision allows the General Secretary for Reception of Asylum Seekers to reject an application at discretion after considering the organisation’s activities; this was also found to violate legal certainty and predictability. Second, article 2 point i sub-point v requires organisations to publish details of subscribers and donors on their websites. Third, article 6 paragraph 3 imposes a two-year prohibition on re-registration after deletion for failure to meet formal obligations, applied indiscriminately. These rules were held to exceed the statutory authorisation and to restrict the right to associate without sufficient justification. The court stressed that the two-year ban applied even to purely formal breaches and therefore went beyond what the enabling law permitted. The discretionary rejection power was singled out as particularly problematic because it left organisations without predictable criteria.
Which provisions were upheld as constitutional?
The court upheld several requirements. Organisations must submit their financial statements to certified auditors. The ministry may verify compliance with registration obligations. Deletion from the registry is permitted when an administrative authority documents that an organisation has failed to perform its assigned work. The obligation to register as a condition for operating inside ministry facilities or receiving state or EU funding was also found compatible with the freedom of association. The court confirmed that these controls remain within the limits of the statutory delegation and do not disproportionately interfere with associational rights. The financial-audit obligation and performance-monitoring rules were viewed as proportionate transparency measures that do not cross into unjustified interference.
What questions were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union?
The Council of State submitted preliminary questions on two issues. The first concerns compatibility with article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of rules that bar registration when criminal proceedings are pending against directors or legal representatives for any felony, or when a final conviction exists for defamation. The second question addresses article 10 of the General Data Protection Regulation regarding the processing of criminal-record certificates required from the same individuals. The court also confirmed that the processing of personal data for the main registry satisfies the conditions of articles 5 and 6 of the GDPR and that no data-protection impact assessment was required before the ministerial decision was issued. Until the CJEU answers, the contested criminal-record barriers remain in force. The referral keeps the existing barriers temporarily in place while European-level scrutiny proceeds.
How have civil-society organisations responded?
Refugee Support Aegean described the ruling as a pivotal victory after years of litigation that began in 2020. The organisation stated that the decision halts arbitrary restrictions on civil society and defends the rule of law against systematic attempts to shrink democratic space. HIAS Greece called the judgment an important milestone in the joint legal challenge launched with Equal Rights Beyond Borders and other groups. Both statements emphasised that the outcome protects organisations working on refugee rights and migration issues. The organisations view the annulment of discretionary rejection powers and the donor-publication rule as concrete gains for the space in which they operate. Refugee Support Aegean highlighted the multi-year effort against measures seen as targeting solidarity work, while HIAS Greece stressed the collaborative nature of the litigation that produced this result.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main NGO registry?
It is the official list maintained by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum that organisations must join to operate inside reception facilities or receive public funding.
Why was the members registry struck down?
The enabling law did not contain the substantive conditions for enrolling members, employees and collaborators, leaving the entire scheme to ministerial discretion and violating article 43 of the Constitution.
Can organisations still be required to register?
Yes. The court upheld the basic registration obligation and several compliance rules, including audited financial statements and performance checks.
What happens to organisations already deleted from the registry?
The two-year re-registration ban was annulled for most cases of formal non-compliance, so previously deleted organisations may seek re-entry without that automatic waiting period.
Will criminal-record checks continue?
The court referred the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union; the current prohibition on registration when criminal proceedings are pending remains in force until the European court rules.
