Dear readers, good morning!
“The most blatant attempt to intimidate the European Public Prosecutor’s Office took place in Greece.”
This was not said by an opposition party. It is not a claim made by the press or on the internet. It was said by Laura Kövesi, the outgoing European Chief Prosecutor, as she took stock of her seven-year term. And it is far too serious a statement to be buried in the small print.
Kövesi was referring to the much-publicised case concerning the renewal of the mandates of three European Delegated Prosecutors in Greece. The College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office had decided to renew their mandates for five years. Greece’s Supreme Judicial Council decided on a two-year term. The dispute did not end there.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office responded through official channels, and last May Kövesi wrote to the European Commission, raising concerns about the effective and independent functioning of the EPPO in Greece. The EPPO’s official statement went beyond the terms of office of the three prosecutors. It also raised concerns about changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases involving MPs, expressing “serious doubts” about whether the Greek authorities were observing the principle of sincere cooperation with the European Union.
These are hardly minor details. Nor, of course, do they automatically mean that Kövesi is right.
The Greek side has arguments of its own. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s appeal over the three prosecutors’ mandates was dismissed as inadmissible by the Supreme Court’s Administrative Plenary, by a large majority. The government has also repeatedly said that it respects and supports the EPPO, while the Ministry of Justice has pointed to a substantial increase in its staffing in Greece.
All of this must be weighed. But there is one small detail: the dismissal of the appeal did not rule on the merits of whether there had been interference with the independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. And now the outgoing head of the EPPO is not talking simply about a legal disagreement. She is talking about intimidation. Indeed, she goes a step further.
She argues that some politicians defend the independence of the judiciary until investigations touch them or their inner circle. Then, she says, prosecutors are portrayed as abusive, given a political agenda and suddenly deemed unnecessary. Justice “à la carte”, in other words.
And when asked about OPEKEPE and the case file sent to Parliament concerning 11 MPs, she is just as categorical: from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s point of view, she says, “nothing went wrong”. Lifting parliamentary immunity, she explains, is not a judgment on guilt. It is a prerequisite for the investigation to proceed and evidence to be gathered.
But if that is how things stand, we do not need to take Kövesi’s word for it. We need to answer her. Fully, and with evidence.
What exactly was the “most blatant attempt to intimidate” that she alleges? Who tried to intimidate the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and how? Why did the EPPO consider the decision on the three prosecutors’ mandates a threat to its independence? And how do the Greek authorities respond to the concerns already formally raised with the European Commission?
There are only two possibilities.
Either Kövesi has evidence to justify such a serious allegation, in which case we have a serious institutional issue. Or she does not, in which case the Greek authorities must make that absolutely clear, with facts and arguments.
What is difficult to accept is a third possibility: that the allegation is left “hanging in the air”.
Laura Kövesi is stepping down after seven years at the helm of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, saying that the most blatant attempt to intimidate the institution during her tenure took place in Greece. If she is right, we must find out what happened. If she is wrong, that must be shown. Either way, silence is not an answer.