The National Transparency Authority is recommending the permanent closure and revocation of the operating license of a clinic in Northern Greece, after an inspection conducted following complaints found that it was illegally operating an oncology department.

The oncology department operated with a doctor, a pulmonologist specializing in lung oncology, to whom the clinic provided office space without, however, having signed a written contract with him. According to the National Transparency Authority, the clinic had posted a video on its website “showing that it operates an oncology department and has the necessary equipment (a biological safety cabinet for handling cytotoxic/chemotherapy drugs), despite not having the required legal authorization, as the clinic’s current operating license does not include an Oncology Department.”

“Doctor Jointly Responsible for the Illegal Operation of the Oncology Department”

“The private doctor, a pulmonologist specializing in lung oncology, under whose supervision the oncology department was operating illegally, had been prescribing chemotherapy drugs to his patients from the clinic’s office since 2022 and subsequently oversaw their administration in the clinic’s ‘oncology department,’ while the clinic’s staff were responsible for preparing them. The doctor is jointly responsible for the illegal operation of the oncology department at the clinic, as, in addition to the fact that the department is not provided for in the clinic’s operating license, providing services in an unauthorized facility is contrary to the doctor’s scientific and ethical responsibilities, and he did not have a written contract with the clinic setting out the terms and conditions of their cooperation,” the National Transparency Authority states.

“A sample of the above doctor’s patients were admitted to the clinic at the instruction of another doctor at the clinic for a few days of hospitalization, with diagnoses that did not concern any form of malignancy, while specific chemotherapy drugs were administered during their hospitalization. The above constitute indications that inaccurate information may have been submitted to EOPYY for reimbursement of the clinic’s hospitalizations,” the inspectors said.

Did Not Have an Intensive Care Unit

In its findings forwarded to the prosecutor, the National Transparency Authority notes that the clinic did not employ the doctors responsible for the scientific supervision of its departments under dependent employment contracts and had not signed written contracts with the clinic’s other doctors, contrary to the applicable legislation.

At the same time, it did not employ a sufficient number of nursing staff and had no staff in certain required specialties (e.g. radiologist, etc.), while it did not have an operating Intensive Care Unit (ICU), as required by law based on its capacity under its establishment and operating license.

Inspection in 2025

According to the National Transparency Authority, the committee responsible for inspecting private clinics in the relevant region conducted an extraordinary inspection of the clinic’s proper operation in 2025 and found that the clinic did not have the necessary nursing staff for safe operation.

The Committee ultimately recommended:

1. The revocation of the Certificate of Good Operation due to understaffing at the clinic and failure to comply with its recommendations and observations; and
2. Following the revocation of the Certificate of Good Operation in early 2026, the permanent closure of the clinic and the revocation of its establishment and operating license.

According to the National Transparency Authority’s announcement:

“However, in its findings, the Committee did not identify or mention in its relevant Report the matters that emerged from the National Transparency Authority’s inspection, namely: the existence of a fully equipped ‘oncology department,’ the existence of a biological safety cabinet available for use, the online advertising of the illegal Oncology Department, the existence of a doctor’s office for a specialty not included in the current operating license, the fact that the doctors responsible for the scientific supervision of departments do not provide services under dependent employment, the fact that collaborating doctors do not have written contracts, and the absence of an Intensive Care Unit.”

The National Transparency Authority goes on to note that “the Directorate of Public Health & Social Welfare, as the competent service, did not proceed with the permanent closure of the Clinic despite having received the Committee’s recommendation for the permanent closure of the clinic and revocation of its establishment and operating license, and despite the fact that the revocation of the Certificate of Good Operation had already been issued in early 2026. Regarding the omission or performance of unlawful actions by the competent services and the bodies involved, disciplinary liability was duly investigated.”

Recommendation for Permanent Closure

The National Transparency Authority recommended that the Region proceed with:

1. the permanent closure and revocation of the clinic’s establishment and operating license, taking into account the clinic’s condition following the latest inspection by the competent Committee;
2. the imposition of administrative sanctions on the clinic; and
3. informing private clinics and inspection committees of their obligation to comply with the applicable legislation and providing information on any obligations arising from non-compliance, through a relevant circular and guidelines.

It recommended that the Directorate of Public Health and Social Welfare:

1. apply the procedure under Article 6(2) of Law 4600/2019 restrictively rather than expansively, in the cases provided for and under the conditions set out in that article. It also recommended that the deadlines set for compliance (or the submission of documents) be strictly observed and, once they expire, that the procedures provided for by law be initiated without delay;
2. not accept, as part of inspections of private clinics, Responsible Declarations submitted by the administrative managers of clinics as supporting documents, but instead request the submission of the documents as they were originally filed.

The private clinic was instructed to correct its website so that information about its services is consistent with its establishment and operating license.

Findings Forwarded to Prosecutor

The inspection report of the National Transparency Authority was forwarded to the Prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeals to investigate any potential criminal liability, to the National Organization for the Provision of Health Services (EOPYY) for any action it may take regarding the accuracy of the information submitted by the clinic to EOPYY in order to receive reimbursement for the hospitalization of specific patients, and to the competent Medical Association for investigation of any disciplinary liability.