-
.
- Ελληνικά
Providing additional credits to male teachers for their service in the National Guard does not serve as a reward for all those who perform their regular military duties, but as compensation for the delay in their professional rehabilitation due to the fact that they have, by law, fulfilled their compulsory military service, which makes it impossible for them to be registered on the list of those eligible for appointment at the same time as women, with whom they were registered in the same year of study.
This is briefly the finding of the Supreme Constitutional Court, which, in its decision dated 20 February 2024, dismissed joint appeals filed by women teachers against the first instance decision of the plenary session of the Administrative Court to rule, inter alia, as constitutional the provision in the "Public Education Service Act 1969" that male teachers be granted "only once for the purpose of promotion to the next highest promotion position, one twelfth of a credit for each completed month of service in the National Guard, subject to a maximum of three credits".
The appellants' main contention was that the additional credits awarded to male teachers for their service in the National Guard, as opposed to female teachers who do not receive equivalent credits, violates the principle of equality to the detriment of women on the basis of sex, since, by awarding such credits, male teachers who are equally qualified with female teachers are given a head start, for promotion purposes.
Rejecting the appellants' contention, the Supreme Constitutional Court held that in the present case, the male teachers "did not receive the seniority credits because they are male, i.e., because of their gender, but for their service in the National Guard. Service, which is compulsory for men and which they demonstrably performed." This service, the Court continues, serves the public interest, which is "a position recognised by both domestic and European case law."
The Supreme Constitutional Court upheld the first instance decision of the Plenary of the Administrative Court, awarding costs in favour of the Republic.
On behalf of the Advocate General of the Republic, the case was handled by Mr Nicoletta Nicolaou and Ms Cilia Charalambous, lawyers of the Republic.
Contents of this article including associated images are belongs PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
