Five hundred thousand euros must be returned to the state and the European Union by Panos Kammenos‘ mother-in-law, Despina Tzoulis, because while she received a subsidy for the construction of a villa for tourist use, she ended up building a private villa, where the former Minister of National Defence (2015 to 2019) and his company vacationed.

According to the very recent decision of the 2025 Court of Auditors plenary, for the construction of the “villa of miracles”, Ms. Tzoulis had received a grant of 177,419 euros in 2005, but did not comply with the terms of the program. So now she has to repay the full amount of the subsidy, which, including 20 years of interest, amounts to half a million euros.

The much-discussed villa on Ikaria during the five-year period from 2005 to 2009 was under-operated, with Mr Kammenos and his entourage as essentially its only alleged clients, while in July 2013 Despina Tzooli submitted a certificate of closure.

The case began in August 2004, when the special secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food approved an investment plan for the “establishment of a furnished tourist villa in the settlement of Gialiskari Rachon on Ikaria”, one of the most touristic areas of the island. The investment concerned the creation of tourist accommodation, i.e. a 10-bed capacity furnished tourist villa on a plot of land of 2,218 sq.m.

The budget for the construction of the villa was 295,698 euros, of which 177,419 euros (60%) was national and Community participation – sponsorship and 118,279 euros was the participation of Mr Kammenos’ mother-in-law. The grant was given in three installments, the first 36,185 euro, the second amounted to 105,829 euro and the final 35,405 euro. With the payment of the third installment, the special operating mark of the EOT was issued, which concerned a 10-bed villa.

10 beds for 20 people

Following complaints, an attempt was made to carry out an inspection of the property and “it was found that the area was closed and inaccessible” and, as a result, “the inspection team was unable to access the property to carry out an autopsy”. Subsequently, in July 2013, Mr Kammenos’ mother-in-law filed an application to stop the operation of the investment. The subsequent audit revealed that the villa has a total of 7 rooms, of which 5 are bedrooms and 10 beds. However, the guest traffic book (door) and service receipts indicated that it had 10 rooms, contrary to the mark granted by the EOT.

But the audit also revealed a series of paradoxical facts, as it was found that different rooms of the villa were almost simultaneously rented to 7 different tenants, in which a total of 20 people were staying, while the capacity of the villa, according to the EOT license, was for 10 beds.

The permanent client

The customer traffic book also revealed that the almost permanent customer-tenant of the villa was Mrs Tzouli’s son-in-law, Panos Kammenos, as well as his company, usually doctors. Elsewhere, the decision states that the alleged clients were staying in 9 different rooms, although the villa has 5 bedrooms, while Mr. Kammenos allegedly stayed with his company in rooms that did not actually exist, while there were long periods when only the president of AN.EL stayed. “During the remaining periods, the villa either appeared to be empty or there were overlaps by two or more tenants.”

Extraordinary Findings

The villa’s customer movement book and service receipts, according to the Court’s consultants, show that:

– The guests of the villa were allegedly staying in 10 different bedrooms of the villa, except that, based on the approved investment plan and the 107/26.3.2008 special operating license of the EOT, the villa has 5 and not 10 bedrooms.

– During the periods from 31.8.2008 to 31.12.2008 and from 4.7.2009 to 15.10.2009, 18 and 16 people were allegedly staying in the villa, although the villa has a capacity of 10 beds.

– During the periods from 31.8.2008 to 31.12.2008 and from 4.7.2009 to 15.10.2009 the alleged clients stayed in 9 different rooms, although the villa has 5 rooms.

– T.M. allegedly rented rooms 4 and 5 of the mansion on 15.8.2008 and 31.8.2008 and while he was already in the mansion. However, he allegedly concluded another lease for rooms 8 and 9, without it being clear what these rooms correspond to and where in the villa they are located!

– During the period from 15.8.2008 to 15.2.2009, T.M. and Panagiotis Kammenos allegedly lived together, while during the period from 31.8.2008 to 31.12.2008, D.M. allegedly stayed in the villa together with the aforementioned persons, which exceeds the actual capacity of the beds in the villa.

– Mr. Kammenos allegedly rented rooms 1, 2 and 3 (arrival 15.8.2008 and departure 15.2.2009) for 6 persons, instead of 4,500 euros, but the relevant receipt shows an amount of 500 euros per month, which however leads to a total rental amount of 3,000 euros.

– A service receipt (4.7.2009) indicates that the duration of the lease is 9 months, but the rent is calculated for 8 months. That is, 8 months times 500 euros, a total of 4,000 euros, when it should have been 4,500 euros.

– In 8 receipts the rental amount of 500 euros per month is indicated, but nowhere is it verified that the money was paid.

– From 1.8.2009 to 15.10.2009, 7 different tenants appear simultaneously (the villa has 5 bedrooms) and a total of 20 people stay in the villa (the capacity of the villa is 10 beds).

– The villa is not rented as a single unit for the whole villa at a time, but in sections (per room or per room).

Change of use

Partial leases of the accommodation are mainly of a duration that exceeds 90 days and the determination of the rent in the service receipts (SIRs) is made per month and in total for the entire duration of the lease. Of the total of 17 LPAs issued during the operation of the investment, 11 are for leases of more than 90 days, while the remaining 6 are for leases of less than 90 days.

– It is clear from all the evidence (door book, AIP, etc.) that “the form of the accommodation, as it resulted from its operation during the five-year period from 7.5.2008 to 7.5.2013, is not consistent with the form for which it was assisted, namely that of a furnished tourist villa, because the partial lease of the property negates its classification as a furnished tourist villa”.

Consequently, Mrs Joulis “changed the use of the investment for the entire duration of its long-term obligations, thus annulling the commitment she had undertaken not to change the use of the investment, as stated in the decision approving the investment project 287169/11373/24.8.2004”. It is also stated that the owner “changed the use of the investment, as it cannot be considered as tourist accommodation”.

At the same time, Mrs. Tzouli did not comply with the terms and conditions of the EIA 471/2002 for the entire duration of the long-term obligations of this company, negating the commitment she had undertaken, namely the obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the ministerial decision in question.

Failed to comply with the obligations

It is also pointed out in the decision of the Court of Auditors’ Plenary that “the partial lease of the mansion was made throughout its operation, so that the change of use of the accommodation took place for the entire period of five years.”

Furthermore, the mother of the wife of Panos Kammenos and owner of the disputed villa in Yialiskari Ikaria did not meet her long-term obligations for the period from 7.5.2008 to 19.7.2011, because the leasing of the property with a lease period of more than 90 days at a time negates its classification as a tourist accommodation and changed the use of the investment, as it cannot be considered a tourist accommodation.

What is required to be returned

The Plenary of the Supreme Fiscal Court, in a closed-door conference, ruled with a minority of 3 members that “tourist villas are intended for single lease, as their partial lease is not in line with their functional autonomy and the privacy of their character.”

Furthermore, it is stressed that ‘throughout the five-year period in question, the villa was not leased as a whole, as was required, so that there was a change of use’. As a result, the decision of the Plenary of the Court of Auditors notes, Despina Tzouli is required to repay proportionally the entire European and public subsidy as unduly paid, which amounts to EUR 177 419, plus statutory interest (a total of EUR 500 000).

What he relied on

The advisers of the Court of Auditors point out that Mr Kammenos’ mother-in-law invoked “the economic crisis indefinitely as the decisive factor that led to the villa not having any activity during the period from 5.4.2010 to 19.7.2011”.

However, this claim was rejected, as it was held that “apart from the fact that, as is generally known, the tourism sector is not among those particularly affected by the adverse economic conditions that prevailed during the five-year period in question, in any case it does not invoke or provide any specific evidence in relation to the particular conditions experienced by similar businesses (e.g.It does not provide any specific evidence concerning the particular conditions experienced by similar enterprises (e.g. data from competent bodies such as the National Tourism Organisation, Chambers of Commerce, Associations of Tourism Enterprises, etc.), nor does it describe the specific actions it took in order to comply with the commitments it had undertaken in the decision approving its investment plan.

Finally, the Plenary of the Court of Auditors rejected as unfounded all the claims put forward by Despina Tzoulis and the case was referred back to the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Auditors for reconsideration, in order for Despina Tzoulis to produce evidence of renting the villa, Mr.etc. for a specific period of time and for the Chamber to take into account the acquittal of her in the criminal part of the case.

The out-of-court letter of Kamenos – Tzoulis and the response of “Proto Thema”

Panos Kammenos, his wife Eleni Tzoulis and his mother-in-law Despina Tzoulis attempted to respond to the “Proto Thema” article with an extrajudicial protest. However, the content of the letter sent by them does not correspond to the actual facts, invokes elements that were not used in the publication and suppresses the essential truth.

We therefore reiterate that our publication refers to the recent decision of the Plenary of the Court of Auditors ( No. 1001/2025 ), which rejects in substance all the claims of Despina Tzoulis – who is the owner of the villa in Galiskari, Ikaria – about joint leases of the villa.

With this decision, the Plenary of the Court of Auditors fully accepts the decision of the 7th Chamber of the Court of Auditors, which in 2019 ( chaired by the current President of the Court of Auditors Sotiria Dounis) had ruled that the practice of leasing the villa for more than 90 days at a time, negates its characterization as “tourist accommodation”.

The Court had then ruled that the use of the investment had indeed changed, as it can no longer be considered tourist accommodation, for the construction of which the subsidy from national and Community resources had been granted. At the same time, it was held at the time that the terms and conditions of Decree 471/2002 ‘on the functional forms and classes of rural tourism establishments’ were not met.

The evidence relied on by the side of Tzoulis had been deemed incomplete, as instead of proof of service provision, sworn certificates from a Magistrate of Athens, of the year 2019, had been presented to the court, disclosing that at an earlier time, Panos Kammenos, his friends and relatives of the Tzoulis family had stayed as… customers in the villa. All the above accepted now and the plenary of the Court of Auditors.

The referral now of the case to the 10th Chamber of the Court of Auditors (which the Tzoulis-Kammenos family relies on in its out-of-court protest) was made for formal reasons. That is, in order for Despina Tzoulis to produce the evidence of the rental of the villa and to take into account the acquittal decision on the criminal part of the case. It is noted that the publication of “Proto Thema” makes no reference to the criminal part of the case.

The out-of-court complaint also invokes the publication of personal data by “Proto Thema”. Obviously, this is a completely unfounded argument, since, as is known, Panos Kammenos was a politician for almost thirty years, a party leader and for many years a minister in many governments, the last one being that of SYRIZA-ANEL, in which he held the portfolio of Minister of Defence.

The publication records the actual facts, concerning the judicial development of the case involving public figures (such as Panos Kammenos) and their immediate family. “Proto Thema” does not judge the legality of the subsidy received by Kammenos’ mother-in-law, but presents the assumptions of the recent decision of the Plenary of the Court of Auditors, as well as the facts accepted by this decision.