Court of Audit: Incomplete protection of the shoreline and beach despite their constitutional safeguarding

A report by the Court of Audit highlights significant gaps in the protection of Greece’s shoreline and beaches, despite the fact that they constitute public natural goods protected under Article 24 of the Constitution.

On 16 July 2025, the Court of Audit – Greece’s supreme fiscal court, constitutionally established under Article 98, published an audit examining whether the control mechanisms applied by Greek authorities effectively protect the shoreline and beach, which are public natural goods protected under Article 24 of the Constitution. Article 24 stipulates that “the protection of the natural and cultural environment constitutes an obligation of the State and a right of every person ” (Art. 24 para. 1(a)) and that “for its preservation, the State is obliged to adopt special preventive or repressive measures in the context of the principle of sustainable development” (Art. 24 para. 1(b)).

During its investigation, the Court of Audit reached the following findings:

The forthcoming Registry of Concession Contracts is not fully updated with contracts concluded by bodies other than the Land Services (such as municipalities and the Public Properties Company S.A.), nor with inspection reports and audit results. It is not accessible to all bodies involved in the audit process.
Regular inspections are not carried out, nor are they rationally distributed throughout the summer period based on risk assessments of beaches and concessionaires. Inspections focus exclusively on complaints, the number of which increased sharply due to the “MyCoast” application.
Land Services lack sufficient staff and modern technological tools to promptly investigate complaints and identify violations, limiting the effectiveness of inspections.
Local government audit activity is limited, and municipalities do not cooperate effectively with Land Services.
Shortcomings and delays were identified in the imposition of fines and administrative measures. Inspection reports are not drafted immediately, despite legal requirements. Re‑inspections are not conducted. Delays allow businesses to continue operating throughout the summer season.

Based on the above, the Court of Audit concluded:

The need to protect the public nature of the shoreline and beach has become more pressing due to intensified exploitation and increasing tourism.
The challenge for audit authorities is that they must act within the short timeframe of the summer months. This time constraint significantly hinders the implementation of a comprehensive inspection and re‑inspection programme, as well as the timely imposition of administrative sanctions.
Law 5092/2024 and its implementing decisions constitute important steps in strengthening the regulatory framework. However, definitive conclusions are premature, as the audit was conducted during the first summer of the law’s application. Citizen participation through digital applications is valuable.

Read also

Report Legal immunity granted to members of three committees in the…

Report Administration fails to comply with Court of Auditors Decisions

Report Issues in tendering and contracts concerning the public procurement of…

Report Court of Audit: Court of Audit documents ‘vague rules’ and…

Authorities responsible for monitoring concession licences lack adequate human resources and modern technological tools. Existing staff cannot, through traditional on‑site inspections, manage the volume of complaints. Only one‑third of complaints submitted in 2024 via “MyCoast” were investigated. Failure to investigate complaints risks weakening citizen engagement. Technological tools that reduce interpersonal contact — which in small local communities can be a deterrent — are needed.
Limited human and technological resources make timely and careful planning of inspections essential. No mechanism has been developed for scheduled inspections based on risk criteria, including selection criteria for locations and concessionaires, to ensure broad and representative coverage and proper distribution throughout the tourist season. The audit mechanism follows complaints, which are currently the sole trigger for inspections. Strengthening preventive inspections could reduce complaints.
Parallel audit responsibilities of Land Services, municipalities and other management bodies are not coordinated. Land Services bear the greatest burden. Neither the law nor practice has established an effective cooperation framework between Land Services and local authorities. This reveals a broader issue of practical implementation, especially regarding coordination between decentralised state services and local authorities.
Delays in imposing sanctions undermine the effectiveness of inspections. The legal obligation for immediate drafting of inspection reports is poorly implemented, resulting in late identification of violations and delayed sanctions. Re‑inspections to verify compliance are very few, weakening enforcement and protection of public spaces.

Where is the problem with the rule of law?

Under the rule of law, public authorities must establish and implement an effective legal framework that protects constitutionally safeguarded goods.

Despite the constitutional protection of the shoreline and beach under Article 24, the Court of Audit’s report documents numerous failures and omissions in applying the existing legal framework to protect these public natural goods.

Thodoris Chondrogiannos

More

Court of Audit: Incomplete protection of the shoreline and beach despite their constitutional safeguarding

A report by the Court of Audit highlights significant gaps in the protection of Greece’s shoreline and beaches, despite the fact that they constitute public natural goods protected under Article 24 of the Constitution.

1. Via bank transfer (alphabank)

2. Via PAYPAL

3. Via DONORBOX (monthly or annual contribution)