EL 
EN 
The purpose of this announcement is to restore the truth and fully inform citizens about the inaccurate, false and unsubstantiated statements made in the press release issued on July 8, 2025, by the Press Office of PASOK- KINAL- Movement for Change entitled "Scandalous inaction by the National Transparency Authority regarding OPEKEPE—Complaints were made and the scandal was covered up!", which attempts to slander and discredit the National Transparency Authority, without any communication with our Service to cross-check, verify or even inform us about the information contained in the press release.
We express our deep regret and surprise at learning that PASOK- KINAL– Movement for Change, through Larissa’s Member of Parliament, mrs. Evangelia Liakouli, has chosen to disseminate to the Greek public, in an unethical manner, unfounded and false information. Such statements mislead citizens and unjustifiably disparage, without any basis, an independent public audit authority that strives tirelessly, with all available means, to combat maladministration and corruption. The credibility of our work is evident from our numerous findings—findings that PASOK- KINAL– Movement for Change, despite its unfounded criticism of us in its press release, has repeatedly referenced in its own announcements and in Parliament, including our audit report on OSE Contract 717 and our recent audit report on the Region of Epirus.
In light of the allegations of “unprecedented inaction” by the National Transparency Authority (NTA) and its leadership regarding complaints about the Greek Agency for the Payment of Community Aid (OPEKEPE); the unfounded claim that we have never conducted even the most basic audit on the matter; and the vague, slanderous insinuations that we systematically foster opacity or shield “friends and favorites,” we wish to clarify the record. Over the past three years, the Economy and Development Department of the Inspection and Audit Unit of the NTA has, within its mandate and in full accordance with the legislative framework and the Authority’s internal audit regulations, carried out the following audits at OPEKEPE:
In June 2022, following complaints submitted to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, the National Transparency Authority, the Financial Crime Prosecution Service, the former Minister of Rural Development, the President and members of the OPEKEPE Board of Directors, as well as the media, regarding the payment of illegal subsidies in collusion with OPEKEPE officials, an order was issued for an ex officio audit. The purpose of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the system implemented by the Organization for receiving, evaluating, and investigating complaints about the legality of Community aid payments. The audit also aimed to ensure the recovery of unlawfully or unduly paid amounts and the imposition of the prescribed penalties. Additionally, the audit examined OPEKEPE's compliance with the applicable regulatory framework and the principles of transparency and meritocracy in the appointment of the Organization’s management positions.
Prior to the audit, the National Transparency Authority cooperated with the Financial Police, as it had been established that complaints reported to the Authority had also been forwarded to the Financial Police, which was conducting preliminary investigations into the matter in accordance with the instructions of the public prosecutor's office, concerning a large number of tax identification numbers in various regions of the country that were alleged to have received illegal subsidies. Therefore, in order to avoid parallel audits, once it was confirmed that the complaints reported to the Authority were included in those already being investigated by the Financial Police, the Authority's audit focused on the aforementioned systemic audit with the above subject matter.
The audit revealed a number of malfunctions within the Organization, which were recorded in detail in the audit report and for which proposals and recommendations for corrective measures were made.
Specifically, it was found, among other things, that:
1. Although OPEKEPE had a comprehensive information system in place for monitoring Community aid payments and enforcing penalties, the systems and infrastructure developed for this purpose lacked a dedicated application for recording complaints regarding the legality of such payments.
2. No centralized system for evaluating and managing complaints had been established by a designated department or assigned officials. Such a system would have ensured proper monitoring of complaint handling, standardized and expedited the examination process, and enhanced overall effectiveness in preventing irregularities and combating fraud.
3. The responsible organizational unit of OPEKEPE lacked complete information on all complaints submitted to the Agency, which were handled by various central or regional services depending on the case, except for those cases where it issued and supervised special inspection orders. Moreover, the "complaints file" maintained by the competent department was not organized systematically.
4. The lack of a single specific application for registering all complaints, combined with the failure to classify incoming documents by subject matter (in this case complaints) in the electronic protocol application used by the Agency, meant that the Agency did not have a clear picture of the number of complaints submitted during the last five years.
5. OPEKEPE Circular No. 85112/27.05.2015, which outlined, among other things, the procedures and locations for submitting complaints, the basic conditions for their acceptance, and the steps of the examination/verification process, had been undergoing continuous amendments since July 2020. These amendments primarily concerned the methodology of inspections and the required supporting documents for producers to lawfully receive Community aid, depending on the findings, the specific inspection conditions, and their outcomes.
6. The trigger for the special checks was not recorded in the Integrated Information System, with the result that it is not immediately clear which checks were carried out following complaints and which were carried out for other specific reasons.
7. The rise in the number of special administrative and on-the-spot checks on plant and animal capital during 2019–2021 — totaling 17,083 special administrative checks, 4,959 on-the-spot checks on plant capital, and 2,064 on-the-spot checks on animal capital for corresponding Single Aid Applications (SAA) of individual producers — was attributed to: (a) the Agency’s findings of excessive increases in livestock numbers, particularly in Crete; (b) directives from the Financial Police instructing OPEKEPE to conduct inspections following complaints about producers declaring holdings outside their actual locations; and (c) press reports of illegal subsidy payments from the national reserve for pasture land.
8. Of the 119 producers from various regions across the country who were named in complaints submitted to the National Transparency Authority and other bodies regarding the illegal receipt of subsidies — and who were audited by the Agency between 2019 and 2022 — a sample of thirty-seven (37) producers (approximately 31%) was selected for further review of audit-related information.
According to the data summarized in the report, these 37 producers submitted a total of one hundred and sixteen (116) Single Aid Applications (SAA), of which one hundred and six (106) concerned aid for pastureland. The producers’ registered offices were located in the regional units of Rethymno, Chania, Heraklion (Crete), Trikala, Larissa, and Evoia. The farming activities declared in the SAAs included plant capital for eighty-nine (89) cases, livestock capital for four (4), and both plant and livestock capital for twenty-three (23).
A total of seventy (70) Special Administrative Checks and twenty-one (21) Special On-the-Spot Checks of plant capital were conducted on these SAAs. Eighteen (18) objections were lodged against the Special Administrative Checks, and cross-checks were performed in ten (10) cases. Administrative penalties were imposed in nine (9) cases. Undue payments were identified in six (6) cases, two (2) of which were offset. In two (2) cases, reports of criminal offences were submitted to the competent Public Prosecutor's Office.
Additionally, the sample review revealed that forms for special checks and appeal examinations entered into the information system had been incorrectly completed by the auditors.
9. The allegations in the complaints submitted to the National Transparency Authority and other bodies, concerning the involvement of specific Organization employees in the reported issues, were investigated by the Agency's Internal Audit Department, which concluded that no actions or omissions on their part warranted further investigation.
10. In the five years preceding the audit, OPEKEPE reported 100 cases of producers to the competent prosecuting authorities, based on audit findings indicating strong suspicions of criminal offences. Of these cases, 43 producers were referred to the Court of First Instance in 2023 following the completion of preliminary criminal proceedings, while the remaining cases were still pending preliminary investigation.
11. The determination of payments, undue payments, and debts arising from administrative penalties was carried out through computerized cross-checks within the information system. Producers are required to reimburse any unduly paid amounts, including applicable interest. Outstanding debts of a beneficiary are initially offset against future or other cleared payments from the same Fund. If offsetting through the information system is not possible, the notification and recovery of unduly paid amounts follow the procedure outlined in Article 28 of Law 2520/1997, which governs public revenue collection. Although the information system did not support automated offsetting between the two Funds— European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (E.G.T.E.) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (E.G.T.A.A.)—an improvement proposed by the Internal Audit Directorate is currently being implemented to address this.
According to the Debtors' Ledger for the 2022 financial year, unduly paid amounts recovered totaled €11,511,532.78 for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (E.G.T.E.) and €7,203,993.83 for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (E.G.T.A.A.). The outstanding amounts to be recovered as of October 16, 2022, were €77,782,305.35 for the EAFRD, €19,935,088.25 for the E.G.T.E. during the 2007–2013 programming period, and €6,879,586.34 for the 2014–2020 period.
The Internal Audit Department (IAD) of OPEKEPE conducted annual audits on maintaining the "Debtors' Register" and recovering unduly paid amounts, monitoring the progress of improvement proposals each year—some completed, others ongoing. According to the latest audit for the 2021 financial year, the Commission was promptly and thoroughly informed about irregularities and undue payment accounts. Data in the accounting records and debtors’ ledger were consistent and accurately presented. The competent department prepared lists of debtors, maintained case files, monitored the issuance of recovery decisions, and continued offsetting old claims against new aid applications within the same Fund. Ongoing recommendations included updating interest amounts on certain producer debts, applying the non-recovery rule in the E.G.T.A.A. for debts under €100 excluding interest, and identifying cases where debts could not be offset through the information system to ensure recovery according to Article 28 of Law 2520/1997.
The outstanding administrative penalties for the aid years 2015–2017, totaling €1,319,838.23 across 2,637 cases, were written off in accordance with Articles 19 and 19a of Regulation (EU) No. 640/2014, as three calendar years had passed since their finalization without full recovery or offset.
In view of the above, the Authority made proposals/recommendations to remedy the malfunctions identified, including:
- The necessary measures should be taken to establish a unified central system for receiving, processing, evaluating, monitoring, and managing complaints, supported by an appropriate structure (such as a dedicated department, an independent unit, or a division within the Central Service). This system should ensure proper oversight of complaint assessment and management, as well as the standardization and acceleration of related examination procedures.
- To develop and operate a dedicated application for registering and logging complaints submitted to the Agency, with the purpose of promptly organizing and systematizing the recording of their details and categorizing them by type and classification, with the ultimate goal of integrating this application into the proposed system once it is implemented.
- Ensure that the special audit forms submitted following complaints are entered into the information system and that instructions are given to the auditors who enter them into the system on how to complete them correctly and in detail.
- The recommendations of the relevant Internal Audit Department to the competent services of the Organization should be implemented immediately, following the audit carried out for the financial year 2021 on the "Debtors' Register" and the procedure for recovering unduly paid amounts
- Take the necessary measures to upgrade the Organization's electronic protocol application and issue clear guidelines to relevant users for the correct and standardized entry of data in incoming and outgoing documents.
With regard to the second part of the above systemic audit, which concerned the selection procedures for filling positions of responsibility, the following were found, among other things:
1. After the three-year term of office of the heads of the Organization's organizational units—appointed in October 2011 in accordance with the relevant Staff Regulation—expired on October 18, 2014, the respective administrations of the Organization did not initiate the required selection procedure for the subsequent two three-year periods (2014–2017 and 2017–2020) by issuing the necessary notices, thereby deviating from the provisions of Article 46 of the Staff Regulation.
2. During this period, until the next selection process in July 2020, those appointed as heads of department since October 2011 continued to perform their duties, in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations. When positions became vacant in the meantime, other employees were temporarily appointed as heads by decisions of the competent bodies (the Board of Directors or the Chairman of the Board), citing service needs and pending the upcoming evaluations, as stated by the Organization and recorded in the relevant decisions.
3. In May 2020, selections for filling positions of responsibility within OPEKEPE’s organizational units were announced in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 47 of the current Staff Regulation.
4. During the July 2020 selection process, the regular members of the Executive Committee (including the competent rapporteur) participated in drawing up the lists of selected and non-selected candidates (meeting of July 6, 2020, minutes no. 152), despite being candidates themselves. This practice is contrary to the provisions of Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and fails to meet the requirements of paragraph 6 of the same article, thereby constituting, according to established case law of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens, an irregular composition of the body.
5. The appointment and placement of heads of departments in five cases during the July 2020 candidate selection process—despite these candidates being listed as non-selected by the Administrative Council—does not affect the legality of the relevant decisions made by OPEKEPE’s competent bodies. This is because the Administrative Council’s opinion is advisory and not binding on the decision-making authority, as confirmed by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens in its dismissal rulings on annulment applications filed by excluded candidates.
In light of the above, proposals and recommendations were put forward, particularly emphasizing the need for the Organization—within the framework of the then upcoming Staff Regulation amendment—to develop and implement a system for appointing individuals to positions of responsibility in its organizational units, establishing clear and specific selection criteria consistent with other relevant systems employed in the public and wider public sector.
Subsequently, following a complaint submitted to the Authority in 2022 and after an initial investigation, an audit was carried out at OPEKEPE to examine any omissions on the part of the Agency's bodies to take action to (a) recover subsidies unduly paid to third parties for land allegedly owned by the complainant, and (b) impose the legal penalties on the persons responsible.
This audit found, among other things, that the Agency:
1. There was a significant delay in calculating unduly paid amounts and debts arising from administrative penalties for some of the producers involved. This delay resulted partly from the failure to perform relevant computerized cross-checks for previous years (except for 2013), which the Organization attributed to technical issues with the Integrated Management and Control System programs, and partly from the lack of alternative calculations without waiting for computer processing of the cross-checks. However, this delay ultimately had no impact on the accuracy or regularity of payments made after the Special Administrative Audit, since the final audit confirmed that none of the producers concerned had undue payments for the years 2009–2018, and the parties involved did not re-declare the parcels in question in subsequent single application forms. Any potential impact would have only arisen had the audit results been different.
2. Following the results of the Special Administrative Audit, the Agency did not submit a report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding indications of criminal offences. However, after a complaint was filed by the complainant, the competent Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated criminal proceedings against the producers involved for repeated fraud under the previous Criminal Code, and they were referred to trial. Regarding the subsequent discontinuation of these criminal proceedings by court decision—due to the absence of a complaint or declaration of continuation under the new Criminal Code—there is no presumption of failure by the audited service to submit such a declaration. This is because the Agency had not independently initiated criminal proceedings requiring a continuation request, and, furthermore, pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 of Law 4689/2020, fraud offences affecting the EU’s financial interests or related infringements, as in this case involving irregularities in Community aid, are prosecuted ex officio without the need for a formal complaint.
All the above relevant reports were forwarded on 27.04.2025 to the Office of the European Delegated Prosecutors, at its request, while three more reports were forwarded by the Regional Units (R.U.) of the Authority's Inspection and Control Unit, namely:
- A single report from the Regional Unit of Thessaloniki, concerning the Prefectural Unit of Pieria, focused on: (a) reviewing the management of overlapping agricultural parcels resulting from unlawful declarations by farmers in the region for Community Aid subsidies, and (b) assessing any corrective measures taken by OPEKEPE for the years 2020–2021–2022.
- A report from the Regional Unit of Serres, concerning the Prefectural Unit of Serres of the Organization, evaluating: (a) the adequacy and completeness of the checks carried out by the aforementioned Service of the Authority regarding compliance with the criteria and the legality of subsidy payments to livestock farmers and crop farmers during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, and (b) the measures taken in line with established procedures for recovering subsidies paid unlawfully or unduly, as well as for imposing any applicable legal penalties.
- A report from the Larissa Regional Authority, concerning the Regional Directorate of Thessaly – Central Greece of the Organization and the Directorate of Agricultural Economy & Veterinary Medicine (DAOK) of the Region of Thessaly, focusing on the review of the legality of their actions in relation to the "implementation of the Cross-Compliance Scheme" for practices involving crop residues (reeds), the monitoring of residue management, and the unauthorized burning of reeds in the Larissa Regional Unit.
Consequently, based on all the above, the allegations made by PASOK- Kinal - Movement for Change concerning the alleged inaction and passivity of the National Transparency Authority in the OPEKEPE case are unfounded and inaccurate. Moreover, we express serious concern over the ongoing attempts to mislead the public, aiming to undermine and erode trust in public administration and state institutions.
Furthermore, we must question why PASOK- KINAL–Movement for Change is indirectly challenging the National Transparency Authority to provide information on the audits conducted in the OPEKEPE case, when its MPs have already arbitrarily decided and concluded that no audits were carried out by the Authority.
Furthermore, we express our deep concern over the explicit directive issued by PASOK- KINAL–Movement for Change to the executive branch, instructing it to intervene, oversee, and modify the National Transparency Authority at its discretion, despite the fact that it is an independent body. In essence, PASOK-KINAL–Movement for Change is calling on the Government to interfere with the structure and functioning of an Independent Authority, while, in the very same press release, it questions the independence of the National Transparency Authority (!). It is worth recalling that the National Transparency Authority, like all Independent Authorities, enjoys functional independence, meaning it is neither subject to hierarchical control nor administrative supervision by the State and is certainly not bound by orders, instructions, or interventions of any kind from the executive branch or government mechanisms. It should also be noted, for the information of those who appear to be well aware of the powers of the National Transparency Authority under Article 83 of Law 4622/2019, but not those concerning the replacement of the Authority's Director, that the Director's deputy is not appointed by the Government, but in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14 of Article 90 of Law 4622/2019 (A' 133).
Finally, as the National Transparency Authority, we deem it necessary to make this statement and respond to this entirely unfair, offensive, and baseless attack. When the Authority and its people are discredited — and the Authority is, above all, its people — who work tirelessly, with perseverance and patience, to fulfill their responsibilities, we have every right to defend our integrity and set the record straight.
In any case, we stress that misinformation has no place in a democratic and well-governed state. We firmly believe that the truth emerges through genuine intent, effective oversight, thorough cross-checking and verification of information, and by considering the perspectives of all parties involved, ensuring that citizens are fully and accurately informed about the functioning of institutions and the state.