The Belgian authorities are reportedly seeking explanations from the New Democracy MP and former European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos.
According to reports, they are seeking the waiver of parliamentary immunity for Mr. Avramopoulos, due to his involvement, in 2020, in a non-governmental organization that later found itself at the center of the Qatargate scandal. This refers to the NGO Fight Impunity (Alliance Against Impunity), which was founded by Antonio Panzeri, the former Member of the European Parliament who was accused of being the mastermind behind the scandal.
Avramopoulos’s response
The former Commissioner maintains that he has declared in his declaration of assetsall the payments he received from that specific NGO for 2019.
“I was informed by journalists that a document has allegedly been sent by the Belgian authorities to the Greek authorities, in which an attempt is made, without any basis, to link my name to the Fight Impunity case. This case never concerned me.
The matter that was attempted to be linked to my name was closed three years ago, with full institutional transparency and the seal of approval from the European Commission, following a decision signed by its President, Ursula von der Leyen. My involvement with the organization Fight Impunity, alongside prominent international figures, was entirely lawful, audited, approved, declared, and taxed.
I was not involved, directly or indirectly, in anything reprehensible. Any attempt by the Belgian authorities to reopen this matter and implicate my name in any issue concerning Fight Impunity, whether through baseless allegations or the distortion of facts, is arbitrary, unacceptable, and suspicious, and will be met with every legal means at my disposal. Although this is a completely baseless matter, I state unequivocally that I will not invoke any parliamentary immunity. On the contrary, I will turn to the Greek justice system myself, requesting that the matter be fully investigated and a ruling be issued.”
Avramopoulos’s Relationship with Fight Impunity
Dimitris Avramopoulos’s relationship with Fight Impunity was an activity that was officially disclosed and approved, in accordance with the rules governing the subsequent activities of former members of the European Commission.
At the time of the invitation to join, Fight Impunity was presented as a nongovernmental organization dedicated to combating impunity for serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and international injustices.
The organization’s public image was associated with the promotion of international justice, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights.
The organization’s Honorary Board also operated within this framework.
This honorary body included, or listed as members, international figures, former officials, and prominent individuals in European and international public life. Among them were Federica Mogherini, former High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and former Vice President of the European Commission; Bernard Cazeneuve, former Prime Minister of France; Emma Bonino, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy and former European Commissioner; Denis Mukwege, Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his fight against sexual violence in conflict zones• Cecilia Wikström, former Member of the European Parliament• Isabel Santos, a Member of the European Parliament active on foreign affairs and human rights issues; as well as other figures with public careers in the fields of international justice and human rights.
This composition was significant for the organization’s image at that time. It created the impression of an honorary advisory body of international standing, with a European and humanitarian focus. It was within this context that Dimitris Avramopoulos was invited to join the Honorary Board.
Dimitris Avramopoulos had completed his term as European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs, and Citizenship on November 30, 2019. According to the European Commission’s Code of Conduct, every former Commissioner is required to notify the Commission of any professional, advisory, or other activities they undertake after the end of their term of office, if these may be related to their previous institutional capacity.
In accordance with this procedure, Dimitris Avramopoulos submitted his involvement with Fight Impunity to the European Commission for approval. His participation did not begin informally or without prior institutional review. It was reviewed by the competent bodies, evaluated by the Independent Ethics Committee, and approved by a decision of the President of the European Commission.
This approval is the key element of the case. D. Avramopoulos’s participation was known, declared, institutionally reviewed, and officially permitted. The same procedure also covered the monthly honorarium provided for his participation.
His participation was accompanied by a monthly honorarium of 5,000 euros gross, for a period of one year, from February 2021 to February 2022. This compensation had been disclosed to the European Commission as part of the approval process and formed part of the overall institutional assessment of his participation. This was not an undeclared, informal, or side financial arrangement.
The amount was duly declared to the competent Greek tax authorities and taxed in Greece, in accordance with applicable law. After legal deductions and tax charges, the net amount amounted to 3,750 euros per month.
Dimitris Avramopoulos’s relationship with Pier Antonio Panzeri was limited. He had met him twice. The first meeting took place in October 2019 in Strasbourg, one month before the end of his term as European Commissioner.
The European Commission was aware of this meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Panzeri asked him if he would agree, after the completion of his term, to participate in Fight Impunity. The second meeting took place at a Fight Impunity conference at the Delphi Forum in Greece.
D. Avramopoulos’s participation was not linked to the organization’s management. He had no executive role, did not participate in management, had no authority over finances, did not make decisions regarding the NGO’s operations, and did not represent the organization before European institutions or governments.
His role was honorary and advisory, limited to public statements regarding the fight against impunity and the need to strengthen international accountability mechanisms.
His work primarily consisted of articles, speeches, interviews, and texts offering institutional and political analysis on human rights, international justice, and the fight against impunity.
These contributions were public in nature and consistent with his European and international experience.
The European Commission’s approval was accompanied by clear conditions. Dimitris Avramopoulos was not authorized to use confidential information from his tenure at the Commission. He was not permitted to intervene with the European Commission on behalf of the organization. He was not permitted to engage in lobbying in areas related to his previous portfolio. These conditions were accepted and adhered to.
During his tenure, Fight Impunity was not perceived as a marginal or obscure initiative. On the contrary, it had a public presence within the European institutional framework. It co-organized or participated in events with European institutions, including the European Parliament, while its activities were linked to conferences, public debates, report presentations, and interventions on human rights and international justice.
For example, Fight Impunity was involved in events and initiatives in which European and academic institutions participated. Public materials from that period mentioned conferences, thematic exhibitions, reports, and discussions on the state of impunity worldwide, as well as presentations at institutional or academic venues, such as the European Parliament and the College of Europe in Bruges.
At the time, this image reinforced the impression that it was an organization operating within a recognized institutional and academic environment, dedicated to international accountability, the protection of human rights, and the fight against impunity.
As for the organization’s funding, Dimitris Avramopoulos had no administrative, financial, or managerial authority. He did not participate in the solicitation, acceptance, or management of funds. The information provided to the European Commission as part of the approval process indicated that the organization’s funding sources consisted primarily of donations. At the same time, according to the available data, the organization had not received funding from the European Union budget.
It is important to state precisely that the organization referred to international mechanisms, the United Nations 2030 Agenda, and international justice institutions, such as the International Criminal Court, as areas of thematic relevance and action. However, this does not necessarily equate to funding from the UN.
Therefore, the precise wording is that the organization invoked and promoted issues linked to the goals and principles of international organizations, without this implying that D. Avramopoulos had any knowledge of or authority over its sources of funding.
The crucial point is that D. Avramopoulos played no role in the NGO’s funding. His involvement was limited exclusively to his institutionally approved participation in an honorary advisory body and public statements aimed at combating impunity.
This relationship did not continue indefinitely. On the contrary, it waned and was effectively terminated at the initiative of Dimitris Avramopoulos himself, when he realized that there was no longer any substantive interest, organized activity, or a real purpose for participation on the part of the organization.
At a certain point, there were no longer any texts, interventions, speeches, or specific initiatives in which he could participate. Under these circumstances, he concluded that the relationship no longer had a reason to exist and requested that all related monthly honoraria be discontinued.
This development indicates that the relationship did not evolve into an active collaboration.
When there was no longer a substantive purpose for his participation, he distanced himself. The decision to discontinue the monthly honorarium reflects precisely this assessment: that an honorary relationship is meaningful only when accompanied by substantive activity and a clear purpose.
Pier Antonio Panzeri’s subsequent involvement in a criminal investigation does not alter the nature of Dimitris Avramopoulos’s relationship with the organization during the preceding period.
D. Avramopoulos participated in an honorary advisory body—with the knowledge and approval of the European Commission—within an organization that at the time presented itself as having institutional and humanitarian objectives. He had no knowledge of or oversight over the organization’s internal financial or administrative operations.
The essence of the matter is clear: his participation was institutional, approved, declared, and limited. He played no administrative, financial, or operational role in the NGO’s operations. He had no involvement in the organization’s funding, lobbying, or decision-making. His only connection to Fight Impunity was the one that had been officially disclosed and approved by the European Commission.
The broader conclusion that emerges concerns the need for stricter institutional oversight of organizations operating within the European decision-making system. However, this is a matter of institutional functioning and transparency. It does not alter the actual facts of this specific case.
Dimitris Avramopoulos’s relationship with Fight Impunity can be summarized as follows: it was an institutionally approved, declared, and limited participation in an honorary advisory body, with a monthly honorary allowance of 5,000 euros gross for one year, which was duly declared and taxed in Greece.
The purpose of his participation was public interventions aimed at combating impunity. His relationship with Pier Antonio Panzeri was limited to two meetings, with no personal, political, or operational follow-up. His relationship with Fight Impunity was terminated at his own initiative when he determined that there was no longer any interest, activity, or substantive purpose for his participation.
D. Avramopoulos’s only actual relationship with Fight Impunity was the one that was disclosed, officially approved by the European Commission, and declared to the relevant Greek tax authorities.
