Sharp criticism against former minister Makis Voridis was leveled by former OPEKEPE president Grigoris Varras during his approximately eight-hour testimony at the OPEKEPE investigative committee. “My removal from the organization was carried out at the demand of two companies that had assumed the role of technical advisors to OPEKEPE, Neuropublic and Gaia Epicheirein, with then-minister Makis Voridis as the executor,” Grigoris Varras stated characteristically, who served as OPEKEPE president from November 19, 2019, to November 10, 2020. The former organization president, despite denying that he received interventions in his work from Mr. Voridis, accused him of authoritarian behavior, noting that he submitted his resignation in late 2020 following demands and pressure from Mr. Voridis’s office director.
Subsequently, rushing to answer a question posed by majority rapporteur Makarios Lazaridis regarding whether he received intervention in his work and from whom, Mr. Varras specifically mentioned then-ministry secretary general Giorgos Stratakos, who asked him to find out why Giorgos Xylouris’s wife was being audited (“frappe”). Shortly after, called to answer a question from PASOK rapporteur Milena Apostolaki regarding the ministerial decision that includes the so-called “technical solution,” which Mr. Voridis agreed to, the former OPEKEPE president spoke of a signature that was not in accordance with European directives.
OPEKEPE: Varras insisted on accusing Voridis of attempted intervention
However, Mr. Varras insisted on accusing Mr. Voridis of attempted intervention. “Why didn’t you publish the tender for the technical advisor? Did the minister prevent you?” asked New Democracy MP Giorgos Vrettakos, with Varras responding: “Absolutely.” “How did he pressure you, when the tender was your responsibility?” the MP insisted, and then Grigoris Varras answered by referring to a conversation with the minister in the presence of the organization’s two vice presidents. As he testified: “To this question I asked the minister, let me show you (making the relevant gesture). ‘They will take your head,’ he tells me, so I didn’t want any crisis to develop.”
Tension at the OPEKEPE investigative committee from the start
It should be noted that the first part of the former OPEKEPE president’s lengthy testimony was turbulent, as Mr. Varras submitted to the presidium a massive 659-page memorandum and then refused to answer MPs’ questions. As soon as he made his intentions known in the session room, tensions rose, with all committee members talking about being insulted by the former organization president. Eventually Mr. Varras was persuaded to testify after a one-hour break, with committee chairman Andreas Nikolakopoulos warning him that refusing to testify carries criminal sanctions.
PASOK sources: Grigoris Varras revealed his dismissal was demanded by Neuropublic with Voridis as executor
Meanwhile, PASOK sources commenting on Mr. Varras’s testimony argued that “Mr. Varras’s references reveal a network of mutual services between Mr. Voridis, then-OPEKEPE vice president Dimitris Melas, and service officials connected to business interests, such as Gaia Epicheirein and Christoforos Antoniadis, who had special relations with Makis Voridis’s office director, Mr. Athanasas.” According to PASOK, “these deeply intertwined relationships created a parastate influence mechanism that attempted to control OPEKEPE, manipulate the national reserve, and turn European funds into a political patronage mechanism.” “How can anyone believe that Mitsotakis was unaware of the ‘blue’ OPEKEPE scandal, when Mr. Varras was appointed to a position next to the prime minister after his term at the organization?” SYRIZA sources wondered.
For their part, “blue” sources attacked SYRIZA over the technical solution, arguing that “it was established as an exception only for 2014, so that Greece would not lose that year’s subsidies, but the then-government continued to apply it, and even arbitrarily extended it to other subsidy measures, resulting in a murky management framework, without control, without transparency and with clear political responsibility.”
Voridis’s response: “If he were sincere, he would mention the real reason I asked for his resignation”
It’s worth noting that former minister Makis Voridis commented via his Facebook account and spoke of “unsubstantiated” and “technically inadmissible” claims. “If he truly wished to be sincere, he would mention the real reason I asked for his resignation. We met and talked extensively. Doesn’t he remember what I told him? And, of course, none of those he invokes ever asked for his removal,” the New Democracy MP notes among other things. “The rest, in full analysis, will be presented before the investigative committee,” Makis Voridis emphasizes.
Makis Voridis’s detailed statement
“From Mr. Varras’s testimony, we heard today that he was dismissed at the demand of Neuropublic, Mr. Dimitris Melas, and Piraeus Bank. One wonders, however: what evidence supports this claim? Is there testimony, conversation, or document confirming it? No reference. Another theoretical construction, without real foundation.
Furthermore, if he truly wished to be sincere, he would mention the real reason I asked for his resignation. We met and talked extensively. Doesn’t he remember what I told him? And, of course, none of those he invokes ever asked for his removal. Mr. Varras also claimed he was dismissed to prevent him from ‘revealing illegalities.’ I wonder: what illegalities? The technical solution he himself implemented? The audits for which he testified he hadn’t informed me? Or the technical advisor tender conducted under Theofanis Pappas, challenged by Neuropublic and ultimately deemed legal by the judiciary? Are these, perhaps, the ‘revelations’ he refers to?
Regarding my alleged ‘illegalities,’ I repeat for the umpteenth time: how can implementing a ministerial decision be considered illegal? Mr. Varras himself admitted he applied the same technical solution in the 2020 interim payment. My implementation is considered illegal, while his is legal? This is obviously a logical contradiction.
Furthermore, he argues that it constitutes dereliction of duty that I submitted observations on the tender text for the technical advisor. If the supervising minister, within his competencies, formulates legal observations and exercises supervision, does this constitute — according to Mr. Varras — dereliction of duty? If you don’t supervise and something goes wrong, you’re guilty; if you supervise, you’re still guilty. This logic simply doesn’t hold.
Finally, a new argument, since the previous ones are apparently insufficient: the 466 million euros that were allegedly ‘lost.’ What did these amounts concern? They were two European Court decisions that annulled fines imposed against Greece. Mr. Varras argued these amounts could be ‘converted’ into hectares of pastureland. By what exact method? How are court decisions about fines converted into land areas? A question to which — apparently — only he has the answer.
The reality is simple: from the 466 million euros, amounts were offset against other debts and 170 million euros remained. This money wasn’t lost. It was deposited — not during my tenure, but later — in the state account, benefiting Greek taxpayers. This wasn’t the reason I asked for Mr. Varras’s resignation. However, expressing such unsubstantiated and technically inadmissible claims could by itself justify it. The rest, in full analysis, will be presented before the investigative committee.”
Neuropublic against Varras: his claims are false, unsubstantiated and slanderous
Meanwhile, Neuropublic S.A. company denies any involvement in Grigoris Varras’s removal from OPEKEPE’s presidency. In a press release issued late Tuesday evening, “NEUROPUBLIC S.A. categorically states that recent references and claims by professor Mr. Grigoris Varras about our company, as formulated both in the document ‘Briefing Note for OPEKEPE’ — sent on 15/6/2025 to the Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister, Mr. Georgios Mylonakis and submitted to the Parliament’s investigative committee on 6/10/2025 — as well as in his sworn testimony before the committee on 7/10/2025, are absolutely false, unsubstantiated and slanderous.”
“These claims seriously and unfairly damage NEUROPUBLIC’s reputation, credibility and integrity, which has operated for years with transparency, professionalism and respect for its clients and partners. The company will fully and thoroughly refute all false claims by Mr. Varras during the examination of the company’s legal representative at the investigative committee,” it further notes. In conclusion, the company states it reserves the right to exercise all its legal rights to restore the truth and address the damage caused by these slanderous references.
