In a landmark decision that has reverberated across Greece, a court in Athens handed down the first-ever prison sentences under a newly enacted law designed to protect the country’s revered Unknown Soldier monument. The ruling, delivered on November 15, 2025, by the Monomeles Plimmeliodeikio (the Single-Member Misdemeanor Court), targeted 23 members of the activist group Rouvikonas, marking a decisive moment in the ongoing tension between state authorities and protest movements.
The events leading up to the sentencing unfolded on the evening of November 14, 2025, when members of Rouvikonas staged a brief but highly visible protest at the foot of the Unknown Soldier monument in Syntagma Square, central Athens. According to reports cited by Greek news outlets, the activists unfurled a banner that read, “Unknown soldiers did not guard traitors of the people,” a pointed message aimed at the government. The demonstration was short-lived, as police intervened swiftly, removing the group from the site and taking them into custody.
The new law, recently passed by the Greek government, imposes stricter penalties for actions deemed to deface, occupy, or otherwise disrupt the sanctity of the Unknown Soldier monument—a site that holds deep national significance as a symbol of sacrifice and collective memory. The legislation was introduced in response to a series of incidents over the past year, during which political groups and activists have used the monument as a stage for protest. Lawmakers argued that such acts not only disrespect national symbols but also threaten public order and undermine the country’s historical heritage.
In this case, prosecutors charged the 23 Rouvikonas members with violating the new law by staging their protest at the monument. Additional charges were initially brought against them, including violence against public officials and refusal to submit to fingerprinting procedures. However, as reported by major Greek news organizations, the court ultimately acquitted all defendants of these latter accusations, accepting the prosecutor’s recommendation that there was insufficient evidence to support them.
The heart of the court’s ruling, however, centered on the violation of the monument protection law. Each of the 23 activists received a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for three years, meaning they will not serve jail time unless they reoffend during the suspension period. This approach reflects a balance between the law’s intention to deter similar acts in the future and the court’s acknowledgment of mitigating circumstances.
During their defense, the Rouvikonas members maintained that their intentions were neither malicious nor violent. "We went to the Unknown Soldier for a brief symbolic protest," several of the accused told the court, as reported by Greek media. Their statements echoed a broader argument in Greek society about the boundaries of protest and the role of symbolic acts in political discourse. The court, however, was unconvinced by this line of defense, ruling that the group’s actions were criminal in nature, not protected forms of free speech or assembly.
Significantly, the court did recognize the mitigating factor of “non-base motives” in sentencing, a legal term in Greece that acknowledges the absence of personal gain or corrupt intent. This recognition, recommended by the prosecution, played a role in the decision to suspend the prison sentences. Still, the message was clear: the state intends to enforce the new law rigorously and will not tolerate acts it deems to be attacks on national symbols.
The ruling has sparked debate among legal experts, civil society, and political commentators. Supporters of the government’s position argue that the law is necessary to protect Greece’s historical monuments from defacement and to maintain social order. They point to the increasing frequency of protests at sites of national importance and warn that unchecked activism could erode respect for shared symbols. “The monument to the Unknown Soldier is not just a piece of marble—it’s a tribute to all Greeks who have given their lives for the country,” one government official said in a statement to the press. “We have a duty to safeguard it for future generations.”
On the other hand, critics of the law and its application in this case contend that it represents an overreach by the state and a potential infringement on the right to free expression. They argue that peaceful, symbolic protests—even at sensitive locations—are a vital part of democratic life. Human rights organizations and some opposition politicians have warned that the law could be used to stifle dissent and criminalize legitimate forms of protest. “This verdict sets a troubling precedent,” a spokesperson for a prominent civil liberties group remarked. “It risks turning acts of political speech into criminal offenses, which is incompatible with democratic norms.”
The Rouvikonas group, known for its direct-action tactics and confrontational style, has long been a thorn in the side of Greek authorities. Over the past decade, the group has staged numerous protests and interventions targeting state institutions, banks, and multinational corporations, often drawing both public attention and police scrutiny. While their methods are controversial, Rouvikonas members insist that their actions are motivated by a desire to highlight social injustices and government failings.
The broader context of the case reflects a growing tension in Greece—and across Europe—over how to balance the protection of national symbols with the preservation of civil liberties. In recent years, governments have faced mounting pressure to crack down on acts of vandalism and protest at public monuments, especially as political polarization and social unrest have intensified. At the same time, courts and lawmakers are grappling with how to ensure that new laws do not unduly restrict fundamental rights.
For now, the suspended sentences handed down to the Rouvikonas members stand as both a warning and a precedent. The government has signaled its willingness to use the full force of the law to prevent similar incidents, while activists and civil society groups continue to push back against what they see as an erosion of democratic freedoms. As the dust settles on this high-profile case, many in Greece are left wondering where the line should be drawn between the defense of national symbols and the right to protest—a question that is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
The outcome of this case will likely shape the future of protest and public expression in Greece, as both sides brace for what comes next in this ongoing struggle over the country’s identity and democratic values.