Από Γιάννη Ζαχαρόπουλο

Equality Before the Law and the Protection of the Rights of Men and Boys in the European Union and Greece

A Legal and Policy Submission Concerning Sex Equality, Positive Action, Family Law, Paternity, Access to Public Funding and the Rights of Male Citizens

I. INTRODUCTION

This submission calls for a serious examination by the institutions of the European Union and the competent authorities of the Hellenic Republic of the practical application of the principle of equality between women and men.

The fundamental proposition is straightforward:

Equality between women and men cannot be understood as the protection of one sex alone. It requires a legal and institutional framework in which the rights, dignity, autonomy and legitimate interests of both sexes are recognised and protected.

European Union law expressly prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex and requires the Union to promote equality between women and men. Article 8 TFEU provides that, in all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities and promote equality between men and women. Article 10 TFEU further requires the Union, in defining and implementing its policies and activities, to combat discrimination based on sex.

Similarly, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, while Article 23 expressly provides that equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.

These provisions do not establish a hierarchy in which the interests of women automatically prevail over those of men.

They establish a principle of equality.

The purpose of this submission is therefore not to challenge legitimate measures designed to address genuine disadvantage experienced by women. Rather, it is to insist that such measures must remain consistent with the wider legal principle of equality, must have a legitimate and evidence-based objective, and must not become a permanent system in which male citizens are treated as inherently less deserving of protection, assistance or recognition.

II. THE CENTRAL LEGAL QUESTION

The central question is not whether positive measures for women are ever lawful.

European law clearly recognises that they may be.

The central question is:

At what point does a measure intended to promote substantive equality become an unjustified or disproportionate differential treatment of persons solely because they are men?

Article 23 of the Charter expressly permits specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex. Likewise, Article 3 of Directive 2006/54/EC permits positive action intended to ensure full equality in practice between men and women in working life.

However, the existence of an authorisation for positive action cannot logically mean that every sex-exclusive measure is automatically lawful.

A sex-based measure must still be connected to a legitimate equality objective and must operate within the limits imposed by the broader principles of equality, proportionality, necessity and non-discrimination.

This distinction is particularly important where public resources are involved.

III. THE GREEK CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

The Greek Constitution itself contains a clear principle of equality between men and women.

Article 4(1) provides:

“All Greeks are equal before the law.”

Article 4(2) further provides:

“Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations.”

These provisions are fundamental constitutional guarantees.

At the same time, Article 116(2) provides that the adoption of positive measures for promoting equality between men and women does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex and requires the State to take measures to eliminate inequalities actually existing, particularly to the detriment of women.

This provision should not, however, be interpreted as establishing a constitutional presumption that every difference of treatment favouring women is lawful irrespective of its factual basis, duration, scope or proportionality.

Article 116(2) must be read together with Article 4.

The constitutional architecture therefore contains two principles which must operate together:

1. equal rights and obligations of men and women; and
2. the possibility of targeted positive measures where genuinely necessary to eliminate existing inequalities.

The second principle cannot simply extinguish the first.

IV. POSITIVE ACTION MUST NOT BECOME PERMANENT SEX-BASED PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

Positive action has a legitimate role in equality policy.

However, positive action is not synonymous with unlimited preferential treatment.

The legal justification for a measure directed exclusively at women should therefore be capable of answering at least the following questions:

1. What precise inequality is being addressed?

2. What evidence demonstrates that the inequality actually exists?

3. Why is a sex-exclusive measure necessary?

4. Why would a gender-neutral measure be insufficient?

5. Is the measure proportionate to the identified disadvantage?

6. Is the measure periodically reviewed?

7. What happens when the factual inequality no longer exists?

These questions become particularly important when programmes are financed through public funds, including European Structural and Investment Funds.

A programme cannot be justified merely by invoking the abstract concept of “gender equality”.

The relevant question is whether the particular sex-based exclusion is objectively connected to a demonstrable equality objective.

V. EUROPEAN FUNDING AND GENDER-RESTRICTED PROGRAMMES

The European legal framework expressly recognises equality and anti-discrimination as principles relevant to Union policies.

Directive 2006/54/EC establishes equal treatment between men and women in employment and occupation and expressly prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex within its scope. At the same time, Article 3 permits positive action for full equality in practice.

Similarly, Directive 2010/41/EU establishes the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in self-employed activities, while permitting positive action, including measures promoting women’s entrepreneurship.

The legal issue is therefore not whether women-specific entrepreneurship initiatives are categorically prohibited.

They are not.

The issue is whether the continuing use of sex-exclusive access criteria is supported by a sufficiently concrete equality rationale and whether equivalent attention is given to demonstrable disadvantages experienced by men.

This is particularly important where European and national taxpayers’ money is being distributed.

A programme financed by public resources should not treat male citizens as a permanently privileged category simply because they are male, nor should it treat female applicants as automatically disadvantaged without a current evidence base.

The same principle should apply irrespective of the sex of the beneficiary.

VI. THE RIGHTS OF MEN UNDER THE EU CHARTER

The Charter does not contain a separate chapter entitled “rights of men”.

This is not necessary.

Men are beneficiaries of the same fundamental rights guaranteed to every person.

Article 21 prohibits discrimination based on sex.

Article 23 establishes equality between women and men.

Article 47 guarantees an effective remedy and a fair trial where rights guaranteed by Union law are violated.

Article 24 protects children’s rights and expressly recognises that every child has the right to maintain regular personal relations and direct contact with both parents unless contrary to the child’s interests.

Consequently, the rights of men and boys should not be treated as an ideological exception to European equality law.

They are part of it.

VII. FATHERHOOD, PATERNITY AND THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL IDENTITY

One of the most serious issues requiring examination concerns legal paternity.

The question of biological parenthood is not merely an economic question.

It can concern:

• personal identity;
• family life;
• genetic identity;
• psychological integrity;
• legal parenthood;
• inheritance;
• maintenance obligations;
• parental responsibilities;
• the relationship between a father and his child.

The European human-rights framework recognises the importance of a person’s ability to establish or clarify biological parentage.

The European Court of Human Rights’ Article 8 case-law recognises that questions concerning biological parentage can fall within the protection of private life. The Court’s current Article 8 guide specifically addresses situations in which putative biological fathers seek to challenge established paternity and emphasises the need for domestic safeguards capable of examining the competing interests involved.

Moreover, recent CJEU jurisprudence has expressly recognised that the right to identity includes the right to know and have recognised one’s parentage, while stressing that such interests must be balanced against competing rights and public interests.

Accordingly, the interests of the putative biological father cannot simply be dismissed as secondary or irrelevant.

VIII. THE GREEK PATERNITY FRAMEWORK

Greek law currently provides a specific legal framework for challenging presumed paternity.

Article 1470 of the Greek Civil Code provides, among other things, that for the mother’s husband, the challenge is excluded after one year from the time he learns of the birth and the circumstances indicating that conception did not result from him and, in any event, after five years from the birth.

This framework serves legitimate objectives, including legal certainty and the protection of family relationships.

Nevertheless, the existence of a legitimate objective does not eliminate the need for proportionality.

A legal system must confront the difficult question of whether the interests of legal certainty can justify permanently maintaining a legal parent-child relationship where compelling biological evidence subsequently establishes that the presumed father is not the biological father.

The issue deserves examination rather than dismissal.

IX. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL TRUTH AND LEGAL PARENTHOOD

The law may legitimately recognise that biological parenthood and legal parenthood are not always identical.

However, the existence of legal parenthood should not mean that biological reality becomes legally irrelevant.

A balanced legal framework should therefore seek to protect simultaneously:

1. the child’s identity;
2. the child’s stability;
3. the child’s relationship with both parents;
4. the biological father’s legitimate interests;
5. the legal father’s legitimate interests;
6. the mother’s rights;
7. legal certainty;
8. the integrity of the judicial process.

The appropriate solution is not necessarily unrestricted private DNA testing of children.

The more precise question is whether the legal system provides an effective, timely and proportionate mechanism through which a man can establish whether he is the biological father and, where appropriate, challenge a legal status that does not correspond to biological reality.

X. THE ASYMMETRY BETWEEN MATERNAL AND PATERNAL AUTONOMY

A further issue requiring serious legal examination concerns the fundamentally different biological positions of men and women in relation to pregnancy.

A woman carries the pregnancy within her own body and therefore possesses bodily-autonomy interests that cannot simply be transferred to another person.

At the same time, the man cannot exercise an equivalent bodily veto over pregnancy.

This biological asymmetry is a factual reality.

However, the existence of that asymmetry should not automatically justify unlimited asymmetry in every subsequent legal consequence.

Once a child is born, questions concerning:

• legal parenthood;
• genetic identity;
• parental responsibility;
• access to the child;
• financial obligations;
• family life;

must be assessed under principles capable of recognising the interests of both parents and, above all, the rights and welfare of the child.

The European Union Charter itself recognises the child’s right to maintain personal relationships and direct contact with both parents, subject to the child’s interests.

XI. FATHERS ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL PROVIDERS

European family policy has increasingly recognised the importance of fathers’ participation in family life.

Directive (EU) 2019/1158, concerning work-life balance for parents and carers, introduced an EU-level right to paternity leave of at least ten working days for fathers, reflecting the objective of facilitating the early creation of a bond between fathers and children and encouraging a more equal sharing of caring responsibilities.

This demonstrates an important principle:

European policy does not regard fathers merely as economic providers.

Fathers are parents.

Accordingly, public policy concerning children should not be constructed on assumptions that maternal involvement is inherently more valuable or that paternal involvement is inherently secondary.

XII. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE NEED FOR PROTECTION OF MALE VICTIMS

A further area requiring clarification concerns violence policy.

Directive (EU) 2024/1385 concerns combating violence against women and domestic violence.

Crucially, while the Directive contains specific provisions addressing violence against women, its provisions concerning victims of domestic violence apply to victims regardless of gender. The Directive expressly defines a “victim” as any person, regardless of gender, who has suffered harm caused by violence against women or domestic violence.

This distinction must be preserved in national implementation.

A male victim of domestic violence must not become invisible merely because the principal policy narrative is focused on violence against women.

A genuinely rights-based approach requires protection based upon victimisation and need, while allowing targeted measures where objective evidence demonstrates a specific vulnerability.

XIII. THE PROBLEM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES AGAINST MEN

European and human-rights law increasingly recognises that sex discrimination can also arise through stereotypes concerning men.

The European Court of Human Rights’ case-law concerning parental leave for men is particularly important.

In Konstantin Markin v. Russia, the Grand Chamber found discriminatory the exclusion of military servicemen from parental leave and considered that the measure perpetuated gender stereotypes.

The principle is broader than parental leave.

A legal system should not assume that:

• men are inherently strong;
• men do not require psychological support;
• fathers are secondary parents;
• male victims are less credible;
• boys are automatically advantaged;
• men do not experience sex-based disadvantage;
• male-specific problems are merely individual failures.

Such assumptions can themselves become barriers to substantive equality.

XIV. EQUALITY REQUIRES ATTENTION TO DISADVANTAGE WHEREVER IT EXISTS

A coherent equality policy must therefore recognise that disadvantages can affect both sexes.

The appropriate methodology is not:

“Women are disadvantaged; therefore women require protection.”

Nor is it:

“Men are disadvantaged; therefore women should lose protection.”

The appropriate methodology is:

Identify the actual disadvantage, identify the affected population, establish the cause, assess the appropriate remedy, and apply that remedy proportionately without unnecessary discrimination.

This is the only approach compatible with genuine equality.

XV. REQUEST FOR AN EU-WIDE REVIEW

The European institutions are therefore respectfully invited to consider a structured review of the implementation of sex equality policies, with particular attention to:

A. Male victims of domestic violence

Whether national systems provide effective protection, reporting mechanisms, shelters, counselling, legal assistance and support services accessible to male victims.

B. Fathers and family life

Whether fathers enjoy effective and practical opportunities to maintain meaningful relationships with their children following separation or divorce.

C. Paternity and biological identity

Whether national systems provide timely, accessible and proportionate mechanisms for men to establish or challenge biological parenthood.

D. Sex-exclusive public funding

Whether programmes financed wholly or partly by EU funds exclude men without a sufficiently specific and current evidence-based justification.

E. Boys’ educational outcomes

Whether education policy adequately recognises disadvantages affecting boys, where such disadvantages are demonstrated by evidence.

F. Men’s mental health

Whether policy frameworks sufficiently recognise male-specific barriers to accessing psychological and mental-health support.

G. Male-specific health

Whether public-health strategies adequately address health conditions and mortality patterns disproportionately affecting men.

H. Institutional representation

Whether equality institutions systematically incorporate the legitimate interests and measurable disadvantages of men and boys into their policy assessments.

XVI. REQUEST FOR A GENDER-EQUALITY IMPACT TEST

It is proposed that the European Commission and Member States introduce a Gender Equality Impact Assessment for significant sex-specific legislation, funding programmes and policy measures.

Such an assessment should examine both sexes.

Before adopting a sex-specific measure, the responsible authority should publish:

1. the evidence establishing the relevant inequality;
2. the precise objective;
3. the reason for selecting one sex;
4. the consideration given to gender-neutral alternatives;
5. the proportionality assessment;
6. the expected duration;
7. measurable success indicators;
8. a review date;
9. evidence concerning possible adverse effects on the excluded sex.

This would transform gender equality from a predominantly one-directional policy model into a genuinely bilateral equality framework.

XVII. CONCLUSION

The European project is founded upon human dignity, equality, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Those principles cannot depend upon the sex of the person invoking them.

The protection of women from discrimination is indispensable.

The protection of men from discrimination is equally a component of the principle of equality.

Supporting women and recognising women’s historical or contemporary disadvantages does not require ignoring men and boys.

Protecting children does not require disregarding fathers.

Recognising bodily autonomy does not require treating male identity and parenthood as legally irrelevant.

Positive action does not mean permanent exclusion.

And gender equality cannot credibly mean equality only when the beneficiary is female.

The European Union and its Member States should therefore move toward a genuinely sex-neutral conception of fundamental rights: one which permits targeted measures where objective evidence establishes a particular disadvantage, but which also recognises and remedies disadvantages affecting men and boys.

The ultimate test of equality is not whether a policy was introduced with good intentions.

It is whether the legal system treats every individual as a person of equal dignity and whether any differential treatment can withstand scrutiny under the principles of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality.

That standard must apply to men as well as women.

Equality must be universal, or it ceases to be equality.

APPENDIX I

THE RIGHTS OF MEN AND BOYS UNDER EUROPEAN AND GREEK LAW

1. Right to equality before the law

Men are protected by the general principle of equality and by the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.

EU Charter, Article 21: discrimination based on sex is prohibited.

EU Charter, Article 23: equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas.

Greek Constitution, Article 4(1): all Greeks are equal before the law.

Greek Constitution, Article 4(2): Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations.

2. Right to protection against sex discrimination

A man cannot lawfully be regarded as outside the scope of equality protection merely because the policy objective is described as “gender equality”.

Article 10 TFEU expressly requires the Union to combat discrimination based on sex.

3. Right to equal treatment in employment

Directive 2006/54/EC establishes equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation and addresses access to employment, vocational training, working conditions, pay and occupational social security.

4. Right to equal treatment as a self-employed person

Directive 2010/41/EU establishes equal treatment between men and women engaged in self-employed activity and prohibits direct and indirect discrimination within its scope.

5. Protection against unjustified sex-exclusive economic measures

EU law permits positive action.

It does not establish a general principle that every economic programme may automatically exclude men.

Positive action should therefore be connected to the objective of achieving substantive equality.

The legality of a specific programme depends upon its legal basis, scope, factual justification and proportionality.

6. Right to family life

Men are protected by the right to respect for private and family life under European human-rights law.

This includes legitimate interests concerning biological identity and parenthood.

The ECHR has specifically recognised the importance of effective safeguards for putative biological fathers seeking to challenge established paternity.

7. Right to know one’s biological parentage

Questions concerning biological parentage can fall within the protection of private life.

Recent CJEU jurisprudence expressly recognises that the right to identity includes the right to know and have one’s parentage recognised.

This principle is relevant not only to children seeking their origins but also to the legitimate interests of persons claiming or contesting biological parenthood.

8. Rights of fathers

EU law expressly recognises fathers as participants in family life.

Directive 2019/1158 establishes a minimum EU right to paternity leave and seeks to facilitate the early bond between fathers and children.

9. Child’s relationship with both parents

Article 24(3) of the EU Charter provides that every child has the right to maintain regular personal relationships and direct contact with both parents unless contrary to the child’s interests.

This provision is important when assessing family-law systems affecting fathers.

10. Right to effective judicial protection

Article 47 of the EU Charter guarantees an effective remedy and a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial tribunal where rights guaranteed by Union law are violated.

This principle is particularly relevant where a person must resort to lengthy judicial proceedings to establish or protect a fundamental family-law interest.

11. Protection of male victims of domestic violence

Directive (EU) 2024/1385 expressly provides that its provisions concerning victims of domestic violence apply regardless of gender.

The Directive defines “victim” as any person, regardless of gender, who has suffered harm directly caused by violence against women or domestic violence.

National implementation should therefore ensure that male victims are not excluded in practice from effective protection and support.

12. Protection against harmful gender stereotypes

The European Court of Human Rights has recognised that discriminatory assumptions concerning men’s parental role can constitute sex discrimination.

In Konstantin Markin v. Russia, the exclusion of a male serviceman from parental leave was found discriminatory and linked to the perpetuation of gender stereotypes.

13. Greek constitutional positive action

Article 116(2) of the Greek Constitution permits positive measures promoting equality between men and women and directs the State to eliminate existing inequalities, particularly those detrimental to women.

However, Article 116(2) should be read together with Article 4’s guarantee of equal rights and obligations.

It should not be understood as removing men from constitutional equality protection.

14. Paternity challenge in Greek law

Article 1470 of the Greek Civil Code establishes limitation/exclusion periods for actions challenging paternity, including a one-year period linked to knowledge of the birth and relevant circumstances and, for the mother’s husband, an absolute five-year period from birth under the provision cited.

The existence and proportionality of such limitations should remain open to examination where subsequent biological evidence conflicts with established legal parenthood.

15. The principle that should govern future policy

The appropriate principle should be:

Gender equality must protect individuals, not categories of people presumed to be permanently privileged or permanently disadvantaged.

Where evidence establishes a sex-specific disadvantage, targeted action may be justified.

Where evidence establishes a disadvantage affecting men or boys, targeted action should likewise be capable of being justified.

APPENDIX II

PROPOSED EUROPEAN MALE EQUALITY FRAMEWORK

A comprehensive European equality framework should include measurable indicators concerning:

• male educational attainment and school completion;
• boys’ academic performance;
• male suicide and mental-health outcomes;
• male homelessness;
• male occupational fatalities;
• men’s access to healthcare;
• prostate and testicular cancer;
• fathers’ access to children following separation;
• domestic violence against male victims;
• male victims of sexual violence;
• paternity and genetic identity;
• parental leave and paternal participation;
• sex discrimination against male applicants;
• male access to public funding and entrepreneurship programmes;
• male representation in professions where men are significantly under-represented;
• gender stereotypes affecting boys and men.

The objective should not be to create a competing hierarchy of suffering.

The objective should be to ensure that no person’s sex determines whether his or her legitimate disadvantage is considered worthy of public attention.

APPENDIX III

PROPOSED LEGAL AND POLICY REQUESTS

The competent EU and Greek authorities are respectfully requested to:

1. Review sex-exclusive public funding schemes for compliance with applicable equality and anti-discrimination principles.
2. Require evidence-based justification for sex-specific restrictions in programmes financed through EU funds.
3. Introduce systematic gender-impact assessments covering both men and women.
4. Assess whether national family-law procedures provide effective and timely mechanisms for establishing or challenging biological parenthood.
5. Examine whether existing paternity limitation periods achieve a proportionate balance between legal certainty, the child’s interests and the legitimate interests of the presumed father.
6. Ensure that male victims of domestic violence have effective access to protection, shelters, counselling, legal assistance and other support services.
7. Ensure that fathers are treated as full parents rather than merely financial providers.
8. Collect and publish sex-disaggregated data concerning disadvantages affecting men and boys.
9. Ensure that equality strategies explicitly recognise disadvantages affecting both sexes.
10. Review policies that may unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes concerning male emotional resilience, fatherhood, caregiving or victimhood.
11. Establish a regular review mechanism to determine whether sex-specific positive-action measures remain necessary and proportionate.
12. Ensure that European gender-equality policy is interpreted consistently with the fundamental principle that men and women possess equal human dignity and equal entitlement to protection under the law.