Following a thorough investigation, Greece’s National Transparency Authority (NTA) uncovered an illegal oncology unit operating inside a private clinic in northern Greece. Inspectors from the NTA’s Thessaloniki office identified serious violations at the facility, including the operation of an unlicensed oncology department, the administration of chemotherapy without the required permits, and suspected fraud against Greece’s national health insurance fund (EOPYY).
Thessaloniki: Illegal oncology unit discovered inside private clinic
According to the findings, investigators determined that the clinic had set up a fully equipped oncology unit that was not included in its operating license — making its operation entirely unlawful. The unit was run by a single physician, a pulmonologist with a specialization in lung oncology, to whom the clinic had provided office space without ever signing a formal written contract.
Chemotherapy administered to patients without a license
In addition, the clinic had posted promotional video content on its website showing an operational oncology department and the necessary equipment — including a biological safety cabinet for handling cytostatic and chemotherapy drugs — despite having no legal authorization to operate such a unit, as no oncology department was included in its valid operating license.
Furthermore, the clinic did not employ the physicians responsible for its departments under standard employment contracts, nor had it signed written agreements with its other medical staff, in direct violation of applicable law.
The facility also lacked a sufficient number of nursing staff and had no personnel at all in several required specialties — such as radiology — while it also failed to maintain an operational Intensive Care Unit (ICU), which is legally mandatory given the clinic’s licensed capacity.
Meanwhile, the private pulmonologist operating the illegal oncology unit had been prescribing chemotherapy drugs from the clinic’s medical office since 2022, subsequently overseeing their administration in the clinic’s “oncology department,” while clinic staff handled the preparation of the drugs. The physician bears co-responsibility for the illegal operation of the oncology unit: not only was the department absent from the clinic’s operating license, but providing medical services in an unlicensed setting is a direct violation of a physician’s professional and ethical obligations — all while operating without any written contract with the clinic.
Chemotherapy drugs administered to patients with no cancer diagnosis
A sample of patients under the care of the above physician were admitted to the clinic on the orders of another clinic doctor for short-term stays, with diagnoses unrelated to any form of malignancy — yet specific chemotherapy drugs were administered to them during their hospitalization. These findings are considered indicators that inaccurate information was submitted to EOPYY in order to claim reimbursement for these patients’ hospital stays.
Clinic lacked the required nursing staff
The regional committee responsible for inspecting private clinics conducted an emergency operational review of the facility in 2025 and confirmed that the clinic did not have the nursing staff necessary to operate safely.
The committee ultimately recommended a) the revocation of the clinic’s certificate of good operation due to understaffing and non-compliance with its recommendations, and b) following the revocation of that certificate in early 2026, the permanent shutdown of the clinic and the withdrawal of its establishment and operating license.
However, the committee’s findings did not include — and its official report made no mention of — the violations uncovered by the NTA, namely: the existence of a fully equipped “oncology department,” the presence of an operational biological safety cabinet, the online advertising of the unlicensed oncology unit, the operation of a physician’s office for a specialty not covered by the current license, the fact that department heads were not employed under standard labor contracts, the absence of written agreements with collaborating physicians, and the lack of an ICU.
The Directorate of Public Health and Social Welfare, as the competent authority, failed to proceed with the permanent closure of the clinic — despite holding the committee’s recommendation for permanent shutdown and license revocation, and despite the fact that the revocation of the certificate of good operation had already been issued in early 2026.
Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the responsible officials and bodies implicated in the failure to act — or in carrying out unlawful actions.
Recommendations:
The NTA recommended the following:
To the regional authority, as the competent body, to proceed with:
a) the permanent shutdown of the clinic and the revocation of its establishment and operating license, taking into account the clinic’s condition following the most recent inspection by the relevant committee;
b) the imposition of administrative sanctions on the clinic; and
c) the issuance of guidance to private clinics and inspection committees regarding compliance with current legislation, along with information on the potential consequences of non-compliance, through a dedicated circular and set of guidelines.
To the competent Directorate of Public Health and Social Welfare:
a) to apply the provisions of Article 6(2) of Law 4600/2019 strictly and narrowly — only in the cases and under the conditions explicitly set out in that article. Compliance deadlines (including deadlines for submitting documentation) must be strictly enforced, and upon their expiry, the legally prescribed procedures must be initiated without delay;
b) to stop accepting statutory declarations (solemn declarations) submitted by clinic administrators as supporting documentation during private clinic inspections, and instead require the submission of original official documents as filed.
To the private clinic: to update its website so that all information regarding its services accurately reflects its establishment and operating license.
Report forwarded to the prosecutor
The inspection report was forwarded to:
The Athens Court of Appeals Prosecutor, to examine potential criminal liability.
The National Organization for Healthcare Services Provision (EOPYY), to investigate the accuracy of the data submitted by the clinic in order to obtain reimbursement for specific patients’ hospitalizations.
The competent Medical Association, to examine potential disciplinary liability.
