“For the first time, the functioning of the Greek justice system is directly linked to the risk of suspension of Community funds,” says Dimitra Halikia, commenting on the intervention of Covesi.
In the aftermath of the letter of the European Attorney General, Laura Covesi to the European Commission, invoking the Regulation of Causality and clear accusations of insufficient cooperation between Greece and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the former Vice President of the OPEKEPPE and current Head of Unit at the National Coordination Authority of the NSRF,Demetra Halikia, refers to “an extremely serious institutional development”.
As she points out, “for the first time an attempt is being made to directly link the functioning of the Greek justice system and national criminal procedure with the risk of suspension of European funding to the country“.
Dimitra Halikia also raises serious questions about both the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Greece and the institutional consistency of specific procedural manipulations in the case of OPEKEPE.
As she says, Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office, Poppy Papandreou sent a file to Parliament with references to felony and misdemeanor offences, leading 11 MPs to immunity waiver proceedings and two former ministers one step before a preliminary investigation committee.
However, according to her, an extremely problematic institutional development followed: an expert opinion on the case was requested after the fact.
The expert opinion was assigned to Parasσκευή Tycheropoulou, which – as Dimitra Halikia argues – was involved in the service during the periods in question, as:
– In 2021, she was Head of the Department of Unpaid Claims,
– While she then assumed key positions of responsibility in the administrative structure of OPEKEPE.
Dimitra Halikia notes that this choice creates serious issues of institutional neutrality and role conflict, as a person with administrative involvement in critical periods of the case is subsequently called upon to give an opinion on possible criminal liability relating to precisely those periods.
However, she insists that this is not the only major issue. As she points out, even under these circumstances, the expert opinion did not result in the original criminal attributions in the case file being substantiated. “Here lies the real institutional problem,” notes Dimitra Halikia.
In her view, a reasonable political and institutional question arises as to how it is possible to build such heavy public and political charges against a country, when even the very expert opinions chosen after the fact cannot ultimately support the very felonies originally assigned.
And as regards Laura Covesi’s intervention on the renewal of the terms of office of European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) officials in Greece, Dimitra Halikia argues that “the EPPO’s own Rules of Procedure do not adequately regulate this particular issue“.
As she points out, “in the context of the principle of subsidiarity and procedural autonomy, Member States adopt national rules for the operation of the national offices of the European Public Prosecutor“. It adds: “This is exactly what Greece has done.”
She appears particularly critical of the absence of an official government reaction to the European Prosecutor General’s letter, noting that it essentially a leaves the threat of a freeze on EU funds to the country hanging.
At the same time, it defends the operation of the Greek audit and prosecution authorities, noting that the Financial Prosecutor’s Office and the Internal Affairs Service have over time proceeded with audits, investigations, arrests and recoveries following complaints by OPECEPEP itself.
She also makes special reference to the recovery of €25 million in six months, claiming that “this is not a negligible amount but the result of real audit work”.
In conclusion, Dimitra Halikia poses the following question: “Before Greece is threatened with Causality Regulations and funding freezes, should some people take a more serious look at what exactly is going on inside the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Greece itself?“.
Below is the full post by Dimitra Halikias
Laura Kövesi’s letter to the European Commission, invoking the Causality Regulation and pointing out that Greece is not cooperating adequately with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, is an extremely serious institutional development. Not only because it leaves open the possibility of sanctions against the country, but also because for the FIRST time it attempts to directly link the functioning of the Greek justice system and national criminal procedure with the risk of suspension of European funding.
However, this raises legitimate and very specific questions.
The prosecutor of the first instance, Ms Papandreou, has sent a file to Parliament with references to felony and misdemeanour offences, leading 11 MPs to immunity waiver proceedings and two former ministers one step before a preliminary investigation committee. So far, institutionally, everything is being judged and evaluated.
But then something happened that raises serious questions of institutional consistency and conflict of interest. Mrs. Prosecutor decided EXACTLY to ask for expertise ! After the fact!
After the fact, therefore, Ms. Tycheropoulou, a person who not only had official involvement in the periods in question, but also held key administrative positions, was chosen as an expert:
in 2021 as Head of the Department of Undue Payments,
and then as Director of Direct Payments and Rural Development at the same time.
That is, a person who had direct administrative involvement and responsibility in procedures related to the payments of 2021, 2022 and 2023, is asked to give an ex-post opinion on possible criminal liability related to exactly these periods!!!
And the result?
The expert opinion did not identify any felony.
This raises a perfectly legitimate political and institutional question to Ms Laura Kövesi:
Before you accuse a country of the rule of law, shouldn’t you first examine how the mechanisms of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office itself operate in Greece?
Does a basic check need to be carried out on issues of conflict of interest, selection of experts and basic principles of criminal procedure?
Because when a case file with such heavy allegations is “deflated” through an expert witness that carries such obvious issues of incompatibility, then the problem is not only political. It is deeply institutional.
And there is a second issue.
Ms Laura Kövesi accuses Greece of failing to comply with an EPPO College decision on renewals of terms of office.
But there is a simple legal fact here: EPPO’s own Rules of Procedure do not adequately regulate this issue. Therefore, the Member States – in the context of the principle of subsidiarity and procedural autonomy – adopt national rules for the functioning of the national offices of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
This is exactly what Greece has done.
So, isn’t it at least paradoxical that today the country is being criticised for having legislated in an area that the European regulation itself left unregulated?
It is frankly surprising that the ND government has not officially reacted to such a heavy and politically aggressive letter, which essentially leaves the threat of freezing European funds to the country hanging.
Right now, we are not just discussing a legal disagreement.
We are discussing a direct challenge to fundamental aspects of the national legal order and the functioning of the Greek judiciary.
Finally put an end to the downward slide that you have allowed to develop for almost a year and a half at the expense of our country by external actors whose confusion over the distinction of powers, responsibilities and roles has led to the international discrediting of Greece.
Say loud and clear that the country’s Financial Prosecution Service and the Internal Affairs Service have done and are doing their job. Over time. With indictments, arrests, audits and refunds after complaints by the OPEKEPE itself.
And they continue to do it.
25 million euro refunds in six months is no laughing matter. It is the result of real work.
On the contrary, out of all the overblown communication “balloon” of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, we have not seen a single spectacular revelation that ultimately stands up to the weight of the case file itself.
On the contrary, we have seen dossiers with serious felonies “dismantled” through expert witnesses trying at the same time:
and not fully expose the prosecution’s investigation,
and not fully support the original charges,
and leave hints of “incomplete information” to the expert witness.
That is, an institutional “tongue in cheek” that in the end cannot make meat of the fish no matter how much the original brief may wish to do so.
And here the major question arises:
How is it possible to set up political and institutional storms against a country, when the very expert reports chosen after the fact cannot support the very felonies attributed to them?
So before Greece is threatened with Causality Regulations and funding “freezes”, should some people take a more serious look at what is going on inside the European Public Prosecutor’s Office itself in Greece?
</html
