Both the government and opposition are expecting the case file to be submitted to the Hellenic Parliament in order to determine their next moves.

The political dimension of the case is evident, as are the tremors within the ruling majority, given that the second case file includes a request to lift the parliamentary immunity of 11 sitting MPs, along with two additional political figures, all from New Democracy. The key issue, however, lies in the criminal dimension and how it will be assessed, as the available evidence suggests a clear gradation of responsibility. For instance, two former ministers are reportedly directly involved, allegedly exerting pressure regarding OPEKEPE funds, while others are said to have engaged in clientelist-style interventions or recommendations. Some appear only indirectly involved, with their names invoked by third parties. It is clarified that lifting immunity does not automatically imply guilt. Since 2019, the immunity of around 90 MPs has been lifted in various cases without leading to incriminating findings.

The government has stated it will examine the case file before taking a position on each individual case. Based on current information, a — even limited — cabinet reshuffle should be expected, depending on the level of involvement of each figure. “Do not rush, we have not yet reviewed the case file,” a senior government source noted.

Who are the “11+2” political figures mentioned in the case file

The scope of the case extends beyond the 11 sitting MPs. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office also refers to five former MPs, bringing the total number of current and former political figures to 18.

According to reports, the 11+2 individuals named in the new case file, for whom Parliament is asked to continue the investigation and lift immunity, are the following New Democracy MPs:

• Katerina Papakosta
• Konstantinos Karamanlis
• Ioannis Kefalogiannis
• Panagiotis Mitarakis
• Konstantinos Tsiaras
• Konstantinos Skrekas
• Dimitrios Vartzopoulos
• Maximos Senetakis
• Vasileios Vasileiadis
• Christos Boukoros
• Theofilos Leontaridis

In addition, evidence has reportedly emerged suggesting possible involvement of a former Minister and a former Deputy Minister of Rural Development and Food, during their time in office. According to information, these are Spilios Livanos and Foteini Arabatzi. Both cases fall under Article 86 concerning ministerial responsibility. The case file includes all findings of the investigation, as well as recorded conversations obtained through lawful surveillance in 2021.

Timeline: When the case file will reach Parliament

As previously reported, the case file had not been received by the Ministry of Justice as of Wednesday afternoon, meaning the process is expected to take place on Thursday. If received in the morning, it will take at least 3–4 hours for the necessary administrative procedures before it is signed by the minister and forwarded to Parliament. If delayed, it may arrive on Friday.

The request will be immediately forwarded by the Speaker of Parliament, Nikitas Kaklamanis, to the head of the Ethics Committee, Giorgos Georgantas, who will distribute copies to committee members.

The 11 MPs under investigation will then have at least two days to review the file before presenting their statements to the Ethics Committee, likely by Holy Monday or Holy Tuesday. For former ministers, due to confidentiality rules, committee members will only be able to review the file in a designated secure space.

The committee will then recommend to the plenary whether to lift immunity for each MP individually. A plenary session must follow, with a roll-call vote deciding the outcome. While the committee typically has up to one week, potential statute-of-limitations issues may accelerate the process.

Lifting immunity requires a simple majority of those present. For prosecution of former ministers, the procedure under Article 86 applies, requiring a plenary session and a secret ballot with an absolute majority of 151 votes.

Government reaction: “A serious development”

The government has described the situation as a “serious development” and is awaiting full details before making decisions. “Any judgment cannot be based on journalistic information,” government sources stated.

Once the full case file is reviewed, the government may follow the same approach as in the first case file, which led to resignations of former Migration Minister Makis Voridis and three deputy ministers (Tasos Chatzivasileiou, Christos Boukoros, and Dionysis Stamenitis). If so, ministers mentioned in the file may be replaced.

Government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis stated:
“The announcement by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office constitutes a serious development. We are awaiting the transmission of the case file to the Hellenic Parliament in order to assess each case individually.”

A case with major political implications

The case involves a total of 18 current and former political figures. It is considered no coincidence that a scheduled parliamentary debate on the rule of law was postponed to April 17, with many linking the decision to the expected submission of the case file.

Particular interest lies in the evaluation of the evidence. According to unofficial information, recorded conversations involving two MPs who have served in government are considered especially incriminating, both politically and legally.

Some conversations suggest active involvement, including pressure or strong recommendations directed at officials regarding specific cases. This is where the criminal dimension emerges, as such actions could relate to offenses like incitement to breach of duty or participation in procedures leading to unlawful disbursement of EU funds.

For others, no direct criminal liability appears to arise. Their actions seem to fall within a familiar — though institutionally problematic — framework of political mediation for favors, resembling traditional clientelism, particularly in rural constituencies.

In several cases, references are even more indirect, stemming from third-party conversations invoking political backing without evidence of direct intervention. This creates a spectrum of responsibility, from political facilitation to potentially prosecutable conduct.

The role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

According to its announcement, the investigation concerns serious offenses against the financial interests of the European Union, including incitement to breach of trust, electronic fraud, and false certification aimed at unlawful financial gain for third parties. The alleged acts date back to 2021 and are linked to an organized scheme to exploit agricultural funds.

The case also highlights institutional limitations in investigating political figures. Under Article 86 of the Greek Constitution, any evidence concerning ministerial responsibility must be forwarded to Parliament, forcing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to separate procedures and limiting its ability to conduct a unified investigation.

In any case, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office emphasized that no further details will be released for now, in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. All individuals involved are presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the political impact is already significant and is expected to shape the political agenda in the coming weeks.