The overall handling of the case OPEKEPE have exposed the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and undermined the credibility of a useful institution.
In a lengthy interview with “Manifesto,” the well-known Dimitris Gallis mocks European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kovesi, describing “the immunity requests as a fiasco” in the OPEKEPE case, while even Maria Karystianou is spared from his crosshairs, as a former lawyer in the Tembi case she has firsthand knowledge of the facts, regarding which, as she says, “her public conduct was, from the very beginning, targeted and structured in terms of political action, and as such will continue.”
How do you assess Ms. Kovesi’s overall stance and conduct in relation to her handling of cases such as that of OPEKEPE?
On April 22,2026, the Greek Parliament granted the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s request and authorized the prosecution of eleven members of parliament in connection with OPEKEPE matters. The request alone was likely to bring down the government. Two months later, no charges have been filed. This fact alone indicates that it was, at best, a publicity stunt.
The fact that, at the same time, procedures were underway to extend the terms of the European Delegated Prosecutors—the very same ones handling the OPEKEPE cases— inevitably raises suspicions that personal ambitions lay behind the request, which, as it turned out, was misguided.
After authorization was granted, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, instead of bringing charges, ordered an expert assessment to determine the extent of the damage. There is no such thing as a financial crime without a determination of financial loss. Therefore, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is now exposed, and it is obvious that the Tycheropoulou report, which essentially estimated the loss to be close to zero, constitutes a coordinated retreat and an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
The looming fiasco surrounding the requests to lift immunity cannot be left unaddressed in the immediate future. The absence of harm to the European Communities naturally implies that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office lacks jurisdiction, a fact that makes the request to lift immunity even more absurd. It would seem that some resignations should be sought, rather than Ms. Kovesi engaging in a legal battle with the Supreme Court.
How far can the European Public Prosecutor’s Office go in interfering in the internal affairs of a state? Has Ms. Kovesi overstepped them?
At the Delphi Forum, Ms. Kovesi delivered a lecture on political corruption. Her reputation as a fighter against political corruption preceded her and was essentially the “qualification” that appears to have led to her selection for the position. Beyond the sermon, however, effective law enforcement requires strict adherence to the rules, respect for procedures, and professional handling of cases.
These elements were not confirmed in practice. The mass request to lift the immunity of eleven members of parliament, without any prior serious investigation, constitutes more of a political intervention and an attempt to present a high-profile effort that serves the narrative of cracking down on political corruption than a substantive administration of justice. Let us not overlook the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is staffed by Greeks.
What is believed to be the reason behind this systematic persecution of our country?
I do not believe that our country is being persecuted. On the contrary, it is held in high regard within the European Union and is now leading the way in many of its initiatives. Consequently, Kovesi’s letter to the European Commission—in which our country is accused of renewing the terms of the three special prosecutors for only two years rather than five, along with a simultaneous request to freeze European funds, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the EU context and, most likely, irritation, in the face of the realization that her interventionist behavior was addressed in an institutional and impartial manner.
In reality,the overall handling of the OPEKEPE case has exposed the European Public Prosecutor’s Office itself and undermined the credibility of a useful institution, which our country has supported from the very beginning. Let us not forget that only those countries that wished to do so joined the institution. Participation was not mandatory. Strengthening this institution—while ensuring its credibility—is a fundamental prerequisite for European integration, which I personally strongly support. This is clearly a failure on the part of individuals, which can serve as a guide for corrections and improvements in the future.
How do you comment on Ms. Karystianou regarding her absence from the ongoing Tempi trial, as well as her positions on the rule of law and the administration of justice?
It is common for the relatives of accident victims to become deeply involved in legal proceedings, seeking punishment for the guilty and “redress” for the deceased. Of course, such vindication does not exist, because nothing can justify death. Engaging in these proceedings often eases the relatives’ pain, partially fills the void, and essentially postpones the realization that the loss is absolutely irreversible.
Especially in the case of Ms. Karystianou, it is clear that she acted with a different objective in mind. The personal blow, of course, is not in question, nor should anyone comment on it.
Her public conduct, however, was structured from the outset in terms of political action and continues as such. From this perspective, her presence at the trial will be noted in the future only to the extent that it serves her political—now official—activities.
