Sharp criticism against former OPEKEPE president Grigoris Varras is included in an email – briefing memo from Makis Voridis that circulated in recent days to New Democracy MPs, following Mr. Varras’s lengthy testimony to the Parliament’s Investigative Committee. It argues, among other things, that the so-called “technical solution” was not a political choice in 2019, but a practice already implemented since 2015. Meanwhile, it notes that the “technical solution” concerns the administrative allocation of eligible public pastures to ensure the activation of rights and smooth flow of subsidies to livestock farmers.
The briefing memo that Makis Voridis sent to New Democracy parliamentary group MPs
Grigoris Varras testimony to the investigative committee – OPEKEPE
1. The “agreement” on the 2019 technical solution
The “technical solution” is not a political choice from 2019, but a practice implemented since 2015. In his testimony, Varras characterized the 2019 “technical solution” as an illegal procedure. However, reality is different: the “technical solution” concerns the administrative allocation of eligible public pastures to activate rights and enable livestock farmers to receive corresponding subsidies. The “technical solution” was and remains a completely legal tool until Grazing Management Plans are completed, allowing and ensuring smooth flow of European aid to livestock farmers. It’s absurd to consider the implementation of the “law” illegal, meaning a ministerial decision that was applied before and after Voridis’s term.
2. The “agreement” on the 2020 technical solution
In 2020, Varras himself – as OPEKEPE president – applied the same “technical solution” that he now characterizes as illegal, requesting the allocation be made exactly as it was done in 2019. Moreover, he admitted shortly before leaving the Organization that he proceeded with advance allocation using the “technical solution“. This raises the question: is his own implementation considered legal while Voridis’s is illegal? Therefore, his criticism today constitutes complete contradiction – this act completely nullifies his argumentation.
3. Varras resignation – why it was requested
The former OPEKEPE president claimed he was dismissed “at the demand of third parties” (Neuropublic, Dimitris Melas, Piraeus Bank) to prevent him from revealing “illegalities“. One reasonably wonders: what illegalities? The technical solution he himself implemented? The audits for which he testified he had not informed then-minister Makis Voridis? Furthermore, he presented no evidence whatsoever: no document, no testimony, no conversation. Varras’s resignation was requested in 2020. So he knew about the illegalities then. But he went to the prosecutor in 2024. Why? Did he tolerate illegalities for 5 years? In any case, Makis Voridis has stated he will address extensively before the Investigative Committee the reason he requested Varras’s resignation.
4. Representative of interests
Varras hinted at “privileged relations” between Neuropublic and Voridis’s circle, without any evidence. Without testimony, without documents, without absolutely anything. Only with assumptions. Additionally, Neuropublic, with an official announcement, characterized his claims as “completely false and slanderous” and announced the submission of documents to the Investigative Committee. Makis Voridis categorically rejected Varras’s claim that he was a “representative of interests“, noting that he never acted on behalf of any private entity or company. All his decisions as Minister of Agricultural Development were made exclusively within his institutional responsibilities, with complete transparency, having as sole criterion legality and protection of public interest.
5. Intervention in tender terms
Varras argued there was intervention in the Technical Consultant tender terms. The truth is that legality control and submission of observations constitute an institutional obligation of the supervising Minister. If the supervising Minister, within his responsibilities, makes observations and exercises supervision, this constitutes – according to Mr. Varras – breach of duty. If you don’t supervise and mistakes happen, you’re guilty; if you supervise, you’re still guilty. This logic simply doesn’t hold. Furthermore, Varras implies the intervention was made to favor Neuropublic. This specific company had been winning the Technical Consultant contract for 13 years before Voridis’s term. Through international tender procedures in which it participated alone. In the tender launched during Voridis’s ministry, a second company participated for the first time and there was competition. Additionally, this tender was challenged by Neuropublic and deemed legal by Justice. So before Voridis, there was no competitive procedure. With the supposedly “sold out” to Neuropublic Voridis, for the first time there’s competition, and those he allegedly favors challenge his tender. Facts contradict Varras.
6. Fines and “pastures”
Varras claimed that fines of 466 million euros for which Greece was vindicated by the European Court could be converted into “pastures“. How judicial decisions for fines can be converted into land areas is a question to which – apparently – only he has an answer. The amounts concerned old European charges that were offset against other debts, leaving about 170 million euros, which ended up in the state budget. Varras’s proposal demonstrates complete ignorance.
7. The “lack of support” from Maximos
An impression was created that the government spokesperson allegedly “abandoned” Makis Voridis. Reality: the government, through its spokesperson, attributed no responsibility to Voridis. On the contrary, it was clarified that the Investigative Committee is competent to investigate the case and that no criminal or political responsibility of Makis Voridis emerges. The OPEKEPE issue is a chronic problem. Interpretations of “abandonment” were characterized as distortion of statements and opposition “spin“.
