The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), headed by European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kovesi, has launched a counteroffensive against the recent decision of the 11-member Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for Civil and Criminal Justice of the Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) to extend the terms of office of three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors by two years, disregarding and failing to comply with the decision of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which had renewed their mandates for five years.

Appeal

The EPPO has filed an appeal with the Administrative Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the SJC’s decision to grant a two-year extension to the terms of office of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors, Popi Papandreou, Charikleia Thanou and Dionysios Mouzakis. The case is due to be heard before the Supreme Court on the final sitting day before the end of the current judicial year (30 June 2026).

Last November, the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, composed of the European Chief Prosecutor and 24 European Prosecutors—one from each participating EU member state—unanimously renewed the mandates of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors for five years, following a proposal by Ms Kovesi. The decision prompted discontent among Greek judges and prosecutors serving at the Supreme Court.

However, Justice Minister Giorgos Floridis followed the formally prescribed procedure ahead of the expiration of the terms of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors at the end of June and submitted the relevant requests to the Supreme Court.

The 11-member SJC convened last month (11 May 2026) and unanimously decided to extend the terms of office of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors by two years. Among those participating in the SJC were Supreme Court President Anastasia Papadopoulou and Supreme Court Prosecutor Konstantinos Tzavellas, while Vice-President Panagiotis Lymberopoulos served as rapporteur.

The 11 senior judicial officials who participated in the SJC concluded that the mandates of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors should be extended and that they should remain within the EPPO for a further two years in order to complete the pending case files under their responsibility.

At the beginning of the disputed session, SJC members first examined whether the terms of office of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors should be extended at all. Once approval was granted, the duration of the extension was set at two years.

This was because SJC members held that, under the Constitution and existing legislation, the authority to renew or extend—or decline to renew or extend—the mandates of European Delegated Prosecutors falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SJC.

As a result, the SJC did not renew the mandates of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors for five years, as decided by the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, but instead opted for a two-year extension.

The issue of renewing the mandates of the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors has attracted considerable political and judicial attention in recent months due to the case files submitted by the EPPO to Parliament concerning the OPEKEPE matter.

Nevertheless, the EPPO submitted an application to the Supreme Court’s plenary session seeking the annulment of the SJC’s decision to grant a two-year extension. It argues that the sole competent authority for renewing their mandates is the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which has already decided on a five-year renewal.

The EPPO further contends that the SJC established under Article 90 of the Constitution is competent only to decide on promotions, appointments, transfers and similar matters concerning Greek judges and prosecutors within Greek territory, and not on the terms of office of Greek judicial officials serving a European institution, which is governed by specific provisions of European law. This is particularly so given that the Greek judges concerned have already been appointed to European positions through the lawful and prescribed EU procedure.

At the same time, the EPPO stresses that the relevant European regulation refers to a five-year renewal of the mandates of European Delegated Prosecutors and not to an extension of their terms, as decided by the SJC. The EPPO argues that the SJC acted outside European jurisdiction, thereby breaching European rules, particularly Regulation 2017/1939 and Directive 2017/1371 of 5 July 2017, legal provisions that take precedence over Greek legislation.

According to the EPPO, rather than deciding on a two-year extension for the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors, the SJC should have referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Response

On the other hand, Supreme Court judges speaking to protothema.gr pointed out that there is a question regarding the admissibility of the EPPO’s application, specifically concerning legal standing, as it was filed by an entity lacking the capacity to be a party to the proceedings.

They argue that the appeal before the Administrative Plenary Session of the Supreme Court should have been brought by the three Greek European Delegated Prosecutors themselves against the SJC decision, rather than by third-party natural or legal persons such as the EPPO.

The judges further maintain that, by filing an appeal with the Administrative Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, the EPPO is effectively acknowledging that the competent authority for renewing or extending the mandates of Greek European Delegated Prosecutors is the SJC rather than the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.