In his social media posts, Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis refers to his views on the institution of the European Prosecutor’s Office, emphasizing that “the European Prosecutor’s Office decided to send ridiculous cases, causing major political issues.” It should be noted that the Health Minister clarifies in another post on X that he has every right to express his opinion, commenting on the fact that his colleagues are being asked whether they agree with his criticism of the European Prosecutor’s Office.
The Health Minister’s post on X
Since morning on all channels I hear journalists asking my colleagues, New Democracy MPs, whether they agree with my “attack” on the institution of the European Prosecutor’s Office etc. To get them all out of this difficult position, I just wrote on my Facebook page my views on this institution and recent events without shouting and interruptions. I am a member of the Greek Parliament for 20 consecutive years and have an absolutely guaranteed Constitutional Right of Expression of Opinion. I also have the honor of being Vice President in the most pro-European party in the country, I fought during the anti-memorandum years to keep Greece in the EU and fortunately in my party we can also disagree. Otherwise we would be Stalinist communists.
Since morning on all channels I hear journalists asking my colleagues, New Democracy MPs, whether they agree with my “attack” on the institution of the European Prosecutor’s Office etc. To get them all out of this difficult position, I just wrote on my Facebook page…
— Άδωνις Γεωργιάδης (@AdonisGeorgiadi) April 18, 2026
Adonis Georgiadis: The post where he presents his views on the European Prosecutor’s Office
About the institution of the European Prosecutor’s Office and its real status in our country
Since the day the European Prosecutor’s Office decided to send to Parliament a request for lifting the immunity of 11 New Democracy MPs based on their phone conversations with OPEKEPE officials, a major public discussion began about the nature of this institution. Like everything in Greece becomes politicized and we divide into groups for and against, and this is what happened here. You know my views on the institution and I don’t hide them. In principle, I considered from the beginning the establishment of this office a positive first step towards a European Confederation and voted for the relevant legislation. However, because I am a real European and not a late convert (I now see various anti-memorandum people who did everything to get us out of the EU by voting for Tsipras and going to the Indignants’ square now tearing their clothes in favor of the European Prosecutor’s Office), I will tell you the truth. Those of us who believe in Europe don’t lick it and don’t leave it beyond criticism.
We want it to become better and therefore we exercise criticism on its institutions and their functioning. The EU remains the best place on the planet to live, but in its course mistakes will be made and decisions will be tested in practice and some will work and others won’t. We will move forward correcting our mistakes too.
Let’s now go to this institution and what exactly it is and whether I am right when I say we can withdraw if we want or it is absolutely mandatory as others say etc., who has the authority to renew the terms of Greek prosecutors etc.
A) The decision of a State to join this institution is not a simple decision at all. For a State to exist, to have what the Romans called imperium, it must necessarily have three monopolies. Monopoly in Executive power, i.e., the Government. The Government belongs exclusively to the State. Monopoly in Legislative power, i.e., Parliament always belongs only to the State and Monopoly in Judicial power. I.e., the State determines the way Justice is administered in its territory. Later Max Weber added to the definition the Monopoly of violence, only the State has legitimate violence under its laws.
Joining the European Prosecutor’s Office institution breaks the State’s monopoly, in this case of the Hellenic Republic in Judicial power. It’s not a simple decision and hides quite a few risks. The way this institution is implemented, especially in its first steps, is crucial both for the long-term survival of this institution itself and for the course of European integration. Here I want to be honest, even before the case of our MPs, I believed it had started very wrong and I explain why. The biggest danger of all is to create competition between any domestic legal institutions and the European Prosecutor’s Office. The European Prosecutor’s Office should not be considered competitive but complementary to domestic judicial institutions. It was not established to devalue domestic justice institutions and do what supposedly they didn’t do, but to focus on European issues with greater dedication and resources. For months now, and usually by the most anti-European forces in the country, either with the occasion of OPEKEPE or Tempi etc., a distorted and very devaluing image of Greek Justice is presented in the media. Suddenly the “only honest prosecutors” are the Europeans. Ms. Kovesi will finally “punish” the “bad” politicians that the domestic judges “protect,” because these judges are also in cahoots… And so now we wait as “Messiah” of catharsis for Ms. Kovesi and her colleagues to put order in Greece.
Excuse me but there has been no greater devaluation and insult to Greek Judges and Prosecutors than cultivating this image. I wonder how their respected Union has not been bothered by this obvious lie.
Obviously here neither Ms. Kovesi nor her colleagues are responsible for this image, however the selective leaking of elements such as the prosecution against Mr. Tsiaras, Skrekas and Ms. Arambatzi to a newspaper and group that par excellence systematically cultivates this image, is their responsibility. The fact that they didn’t find a way to cut it like a knife is their responsibility. If this narrative continues at some point in the future, domestic and European legal order will inevitably clash. Those who were in the anti-memorandum and fought to get us out of the EU probably want this too. So again there will be a crisis in our relations with the EU which they like. But we who fought to keep Greece in Europe have a duty to prevent this and my stance to warn and point out this problem is not anti-European but pro-European. And at European level, for example, the hunt for the Commission President for vaccines with Pfizer for stupid accusations, one can see it from the perspective that no one is above the law in Europe (which is good) but again it didn’t take into account how much water it threw to the mill of anti-Europeanism and ultimately strengthened conspiracy theories against European institutions. The establishment itself of this institution is correct, but the way natural persons manage the power given to them will judge much both for the institution and for Europe. I want the institution to succeed but if it continues ignoring the political implications of various of their actions it will fail. This I predict. The failure will be damage for Europe and a step back, I sincerely hope they will eventually succeed in their mission.
B) This competition I told you about earlier in Greece was strongly reinforced by the practical questioning of the sovereign and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Council of the Areopagus, regarding who appoints and renews the term of Greek prosecutors in this institution. What exactly happened? The College of commissioners of prosecutors renewed Ms. Papandreou’s term without asking the Areopagus last November. When this decision became known, this renewal was not accepted. Already various people come out and contradict me, but if they searched better they would know that finally Ms. Kovesi herself sent a letter to the Areopagus asking for the renewal of Ms. Papandreou’s term and two other prosecutors, so she herself recognized the jurisdiction of the Areopagus and the interested parties themselves applied to have their term in the European Prosecutor’s Office renewed at the Supreme Judicial Council of the Areopagus. So they themselves also recognized the authority of the Areopagus. End of alarm. In short, those constitutional scholars who rushed to criticize me had simply not done the reporting I did. Whether their term will be renewed or not I don’t know, since it’s not my job, however I know that the decision for their renewal or not will be taken by the Areopagus in May. I have confidence in its judgment, because I have absolute confidence in Greek Justice. And again, completely coincidentally, all the anti-European forces in the Country have rallied against the jurisdiction of the Areopagus…and again the “good” European prosecutors and the “bad” Greek judges…the same fiercely anti-democratic and anti-European fairy tale.
C) Regarding the cases related to Parliament, things are absolutely clear. The European Prosecutor’s Office decided to send ridiculous cases causing major political issues. All lawyers without exception know well that no conviction can exist with these elements. I emphasize all cases will either end in archiving or finally in acquittal. I risk this prediction. The only question I have is why there was all this behavior on the part of the Prosecutor. She cannot have failed to understand that leaks to the press and especially to the fiercely opposition press would create political problems. She cannot have decided that they come in waves, trapping Parliament in constant turmoil. Even small children understand these things. And yet she did it ignoring all this. I have no explanation why and I generally don’t like conspiracies. But combining the fact I mentioned earlier, regarding the renewal of Ms. Papandreou’s and Mr. Mouzakis’ term, the rejection by the Areopagus of the automatic renewal of their term, as they wanted, the time of sending the files to Parliament so close to the session of the Supreme Judicial Council etc. makes me think. If I wrong them I ask for their forgiveness but unfortunately to say something else Roman, therefore absolutely European, Caesar’s wife is not enough to be honest but also to appear so. In any case this new institution must find its footing and mainly remain as politically neutral as possible. Its involvement in politics will destroy it. Those who truly care about this institution, as they say, understand this.
D) Regarding my position that we can withdraw, a position for which I also received criticism as usual. Unequivocally YES we can. I’m not saying we will withdraw, nor am I saying we should withdraw yet, but as an MP of Parliament, a legislator who voted for this law, I tell you that if a future Greek Parliament would want Greece due to various problems to reverse this previous decision of ours it could do so. Our integration into the institution does not arise from our participation in the EU. That’s why there are 5 EU countries that have not joined this institution.
The EPPO was established with Regulation 2017/1939 within the framework of enhanced cooperation. The mandatory nature of this Regulation applies to the 22 countries that decided to participate in enhanced cooperation. However, a country can withdraw from enhanced cooperation at any time. If a participating country withdrew then the mandatory nature of this Regulation would cease and with a simple law it could abolish the jurisdiction of the European Prosecutor’s Office in Greece.
What would NOT be canceled
• Already pending cases that EPPO has undertaken against the country. So what I say and said is not intervention in pending cases, something for which the respected Union of Judges and Prosecutors accused me, a union I absolutely honor.
• Convictions and decisions already issued
• The obligation of cooperation with EPPO for older cases
What would change?
• The country would no longer participate in the administration and financing of EPPO
• It would not have a European Prosecutor as its representative
• New cases concerning the country would go to national authorities
Simply the withdrawing country exits the scope of application of the regulation.
In essence it’s as if you had never signed — for the future, but not for the past.
Those distinguished lawyers who rushed to criticize me, let them read better. 20 years as a legislator I finally learned something. I repeat I don’t say we will do it, nor that we should do it, I say it remains our sovereign right to do it, whenever we want.
In short, let’s give this institution time to function, but let’s say the truth with courage, it has started very wrong. I wish them to find a way to function in such a complex structure as the EU is. However they should know that they themselves will have the absolute responsibility for the failure of the institution they represent. Similar thoughts to mine are now expressed in other countries of the 22, recently in Italy we had essentially a snub of this institution by the Italian Supreme Court. Let’s consider that these are the childhood diseases of a new institution and let’s give time, not infinite though, infinite time none of us has in this life. And those who judge are judged.
