A preliminary investigation committee for Lefteris Augenakis and Makis Voridis is also being demanded by PASOK through the report it submitted to the presidency of the investigative committee on OPEKEPE. This is because according to Charilaou Trikoupi, the evidence presented to the committee is sufficient for establishing a preliminary investigation. According to PASOK, the investigative committee for OPEKEPE “did not serve as a tool for seeking the truth,” but was integrated, according to its assessment, into a New Democracy scheme to prevent the control of former ministers by the competent judicial authorities. At the same time, it denounces that the governmental majority used the investigative committee as a “control substitute,” limiting – as it states – the scope of the investigation, the selection of witnesses and the evidentiary basis.
Furthermore, PASOK describes, with references to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office case file and the evidence presented to the committee, an organized mechanism of illegal appropriation of EU funds during the period 2019–2024, with characteristics of continuous and multi-level action. According to the main opposition party, the findings do not constitute simple administrative dysfunction or “chronic pathology,” but form a repetitive pattern of actions and omissions that led to the abusive disposal of EU subsidies.
PASOK on preliminary investigation for OPEKEPE: Serious indications emerge for participation of political figures
Based on the evaluation of the evidence, PASOK states that serious indications emerge for the participation of political figures in forms of contribution to the acts of breach of trust attributed to administrators and executives of OPEKEPE. Specifically, regarding Makis Voridis, the report focuses, among other things, on the removal of the former president of the organization Gr. Varras, as well as the case of pasture allocation outside Crete to livestock farmers from the island, arguing that such choices objectively facilitated illegal activity.
For Lefteris Augenakis, PASOK invokes testimonies and reports that, in its judgment, substantiate serious indications of pressure to unblock blocked tax numbers, targeting of administrative executives who had promoted stricter controls, as well as broader political cover in critical phases of the case. In the same context, it notes that regarding the former minister, according to its assessment, additional indications emerge for moral authorship in breach of trust, beyond complicity.
According to the main opposition, it is “manifestly imperative” to conduct a criminal preliminary examination under Article 86 of the Constitution to investigate possible criminal liabilities of the two former ministers, with the possibility of extending the investigation if new evidence emerges for other political figures or punishable acts. PASOK also focuses on the institutional conclusions it draws from the case, and criticizes both the application of Article 86 of the Constitution and the way parliamentary investigative committees operate. As it notes, the current framework allows each parliamentary majority to obstruct the criminal investigation of political figures and calls for constitutional revision, aimed at substantially disconnecting the criminal liability of ministers from the political will of the majority.
At the organizational proposal level for OPEKEPE, PASOK rejects the governmental initiative to transfer the organization to AADE’s competence, arguing that it does not constitute reform, but downgrading of agricultural policy. Instead, it presents a reorganization plan with emphasis on institutional fortification of OPEKEPE as an independent organization under the Ministry of Agriculture, objective procedures for management selection, staff reinforcement, transparent evaluation system, interconnection of information systems with critical public bodies and technological autonomy from external consultants.
According to PASOK, the proposed framework aims to restore OPEKEPE’s credibility, more effective management of EU subsidies and protection of real producers, at a time when – as it notes – agricultural policy and CAP are entering a new, demanding phase.
Joint report from SYRIZA & New Left for OPEKEPE
Clear political responsibilities of former Agriculture Ministers Makis Voridis and Lefteris Augenakis are seen by SYRIZA and New Left in their joint report on the OPEKEPE scandal. “The political responsibilities of the competent ministers are clear. Makis Voridis, during his tenure, did not ensure substantial oversight, did not impose effective controls and – according to the evidence – did not stop a system that created artificial conditions for receiving subsidies. Lefteris Augenakis, instead of proceeding with rehabilitation, appears to have maintained a framework of administrative instability, with pressures for unblocking blocked tax numbers and payments, while controls were pending,” the two parties characteristically state.
SYRIZA and New Left with joint report: What they demand
At the same time, SYRIZA and New Left put Kyriakos Mitsotakis in the frame of responsibilities, for whom they state that “either he knew about the serious weaknesses, the complaints and the risk of fiscal corrections and did not intervene — therefore he bears political responsibility of tolerance. Or he did not know — therefore the very narrative of the staff-based, effective state collapses.” Under this prism, according to the two parties, “the establishment of a Special Parliamentary Committee (Preliminary Investigation Committee), according to Article 86 of the Constitution and the current framework on ministerial responsibility, constitutes an institutional necessity. Not for political exploitation, but for complete and in-depth investigation of the indications.”
More specifically:
The OPEKEPE scandal does not constitute a simple administrative failure. It is a deep political case, with a clear power imprint and responsibility, extending beyond individual persons and concerning the entire governmental period of New Democracy. A system of artificial creation of “eligibility,” bypassing controls and distribution of EU subsidies to fictitious or non-entitled recipients is revealed, with possible damage of hundreds of millions of euros at the expense of the European Union’s financial interests and real farmers.
The testimonies, legal hearings and the European Public Prosecutor’s referral do not describe an isolated deviation. They describe a systematic practice with administrative continuity and political tolerance. Public land appears to be utilized as a mechanism for subsidy distribution, control mechanisms are weakened and warnings do not lead to institutional fortification.
The political responsibilities of the competent ministers are clear.
Makis Voridis, during his tenure, did not ensure substantial oversight, did not impose effective controls and – according to the evidence – did not stop a system that created artificial conditions for receiving subsidies.
Lefteris Augenakis, instead of proceeding with rehabilitation, appears to have maintained a framework of administrative instability, with pressures for unblocking blocked tax numbers and payments, while controls were pending.
However, in a governance model that self-characterizes as “Staff State,” responsibility does not stop at ministers. The concentration of competencies and central control from the prime ministerial office means concentrated political responsibility. Kyriakos Mitsotakis himself has invested politically in the narrative of absolute central oversight and close coordination.
Therefore, the questions are relentless:
Either he knew about the serious weaknesses, complaints and the risk of fiscal corrections and did not intervene — therefore he bears political responsibility of tolerance.
Or he did not know — therefore the very narrative of the staff-based, effective state collapses.
In any case, responsibility cannot be diffused. When power is concentrated, accountability is also concentrated.
For this reason, the establishment of a Special Parliamentary Committee (Preliminary Investigation Committee), according to Article 86 of the Constitution and the current framework on ministerial responsibility, constitutes an institutional necessity. Not for political exploitation, but for complete and in-depth investigation of the indications.
Specifically, SYRIZA PS insists on its position for establishing a Preliminary Investigation Committee to conduct preliminary examination against:
- i) Voridis Mavroudis (Makis), Minister of Agricultural Development & Food from 09/07/2019 to 05/01/2021 and
- ii) Augenakis Eleftherios, Minister of Agricultural Development & Food from 27/06/2023 to 14/06/2024
for the crimes of:
(i) complicity in abuse against the financial interests of the European Union and
(ii) moral authorship in committing abuse against the financial interests of the European Union, which fall under national law and are typified and punished as:
(a) Complicity in felonious breach of trust against the financial interests of the European Union, committed jointly and repeatedly, with damage exceeding 120,000 euros (Article 390 par.1 and 2 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Penal Code).
(b) Moral authorship in felonious breach of trust against the financial interests of the EU, committed jointly and repeatedly, with damage exceeding 120,000 euros. (Article 390 par.1 and 2 in conjunction with Article 46 par. 1 of the Penal Code), as well as for any other crime that may arise during the Preliminary Examination to be conducted.
SYRIZA-PS and New Left stood with consistency and documentation throughout the work of the investigative committee. They highlighted the case file elements, insisted on specific political responsibilities and demonstrated that the issue is not a “technical dysfunction,” but a blue scandal with institutional weight.
And this stance is not completed with a report. We will continue to highlight the OPEKEPE scandal in all its dimensions — political, institutional and potentially criminal.
We will continue to insist on transparency, accountability and protection of public and European money. We will continue to defend the interests of real farmers and the country’s credibility.
Because Democracy does not compromise with shadows.
And society demands answers — not silence.
KKE does not submit report – Demands committee work continues
KKE is not submitting its report to the presidency of the OPEKEPE investigative committee, as announced by the two MPs who participated in the committee’s work, adding that sessions should continue.
As Nikos Karathanassopoulos and Diamanto Manolakos note, “KKE opposed the closure of the investigative committee’s work, with responsibility of the ND majority, without having called crucial witnesses, without prior adversarial examination of some of them given that there were contradictory testimonies, and without examining other crucial evidence requested by KKE,” they characteristically state.
Furthermore, the two MPs argue that KKE, “not harboring illusions about the margins of these parliamentary procedures, given the political correlations, will insist until the last moment for continuing the investigative committee’s work. If this does not happen, it will submit its own report.”
