- Unthinkable: Even at the eleventh hour, when warnings about a suspension of payments were pouring in from European authorities, they still failed to produce a plan that met the Commission’s specifications.
- Data Journalists reveal the correspondence between OPEKEPE’s then-president, Nikos Salatas, and DG AGRI.
- Although they heard the Europeans’ warning bells, they responded with cosmetic fixes instead of seeking a substantive solution.
- The Salatas plan, presented as “the best action plan,” was riddled with flaws. Its rejection by the Commission was followed by Salatas’s dismissal by the Minister of Rural Development, Kostas Tsiaras.
By Vangelis Triantis
Data Journalists have published new evidence relating to the OPEKEPE scandal. The material consists of two letters from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), addressed to OPEKEPE. The first letter, sent in March 2025, was addressed to OPEKEPE’s then-president, Nikos Salatas. In the letter, DG AGRI called on OPEKEPE to “comply,” as it had identified “serious deficiencies in the governance systems for the IACS in Greece.” It issued an ultimatum to the management at the time, demanding that they draw up and submit a restructuring plan for the organization by early June 2025. Failure to do so would result in a “suspension of payments.” A plan was indeed drafted and submitted to DG AGRI on June 2, 2025. However, it stood no chance of approval. In August 2025, DG AGRI sent a follow-up letter outlining its findings on the restructuring plan. The Commission’s assessment was negative. The plan was rejected because it “was not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies,” and DG AGRI sounded the alarm once again over a possible suspension of payments. Even at the eleventh hour, it is striking that the authorities failed to produce a restructuring plan that met the Commission’s specifications. Data Journalists published both letters in full. Now, let us examine what each letter states.
The First “Warning Bell” Letter from DG AGRI
In March 2025, DG AGRI sent a letter to OPEKEPE and the Special Secretariat of the Fiscal Audit Committee (EDEL) of the Ministry of Finance. This letter followed an audit that DG AGRI had carried out in September 2024. The letter referred to the audit’s findings, which were unfavorable to Greece. According to the letter published by Data Journalists, “The compliance audit conducted in September 2024 by the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) revealed a series of potentially serious deficiencies in the governance systems for the IACS in Greece.”
It was also emphasized that the “Certifying Body,” the Ministry of Rural Development, had confirmed the existence of potentially serious deficiencies in Greece’s governance systems in its 2024 annual report.
Therefore, DG AGRI sounded the alarm to OPEKEPE.
“If these deficiencies are not remedied by the 2025 claim year and subsequent years, they will be considered serious under Article 2(d) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116,” the letter stated. That regulation pertains to “the financing, management, and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy and the repeal of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.” The provision cited by DG AGRI, Article 2(d), relates to “serious deficiencies in the proper functioning of governance systems.” The European regulation is unequivocal:
“The existence of a systemic weakness, taking into account its recurrence, severity, and its potential to jeopardize the accurate declaration of expenditure, the submission of performance reports, or compliance with Union law,” is emphasized in the European Regulation. In the present case, DG AGRI left no room for misinterpretation. According to its letter, “the shortcomings were recurrent,” affecting “the level of assurance that DG AGRI can obtain regarding the eligibility of current and future expenditure.”
“If these deficiencies are not remedied by the 2025 claim year and subsequent years, they will be considered serious under Article 2(d) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116. Some of these deficiencies were identified during the previous CAP period. Consequently, they are recurring. Combined with their severity, this indicates a serious problem affecting the level of assurance that DG AGRI can obtain regarding the eligibility of current and future CAP expenditures subject to IACS,” the letter emphasizes.
“Suspension of Monthly Payments”
In the same letter, DG AGRI outlined what the OPEKEPE restructuring plan would have to include. Specifically, DG AGRI provided detailed guidance on the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) and the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for CAP interventions. The IACS provides assurance as to the legality and regularity of CAP expenditure. DG AGRI also set out the implementation of a sanctions system that is proportionate and graduated according to the severity, extent, duration, and recurrence of non-compliance, among other requirements.
DG AGRI set a two-month deadline for submitting the action plan.
“In order for DG AGRI to assess whether the action plan is sufficient to remedy the aforementioned deficiencies, we kindly request that you submit a description of the corrective measures you plan to take, along with a timetable for implementation. The timetable should include a completion date for each action, which should not exceed 12 months from the start of the action plan. It should also include milestones that will enable proper monitoring of the action plan through regular reporting,” it was emphasized.
At the same time, DG AGRI raised concerns about OPEKEPE’s payments. The message was clear: comply or face consequences.
“In accordance with Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116, failure to submit the action plan may result in suspension of monthly payments under Article 21(3) or interim payments under Article 32,” DG AGRI emphasized.
The Warning Letter from DG AGRI of March 2025
The Salatas Plan for Emerging from the Crisis
The then-president of OPEKEPE, Nikos Salatas, received the letter from DG AGRI. Salatas is a figure with a background in the judiciary; he is an honorary president of the Court of Appeal and has a long record of service, including on the board of the Association of Judges and Prosecutors.
With the assistance of senior civil servants, the Salatas administration set in motion OPEKEPE’s restructuring plan. It was an ambitious effort, reportedly described as “the best action plan.” However, the outcome did not live up to expectations. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Salatas was removed from his post as president of OPEKEPE by the Minister of Rural Development, Kostas Tsiaras. This was in response to Mr. Salatas’s negative stance toward the European Public Prosecutor’s Office during the investigations into OPEKEPE.
The Commission’s Rejection of the Plan
The Salatas plan was ultimately submitted to DG AGRI on June 2, 2025, by the subsequent OPEKEPE administration. Two months later, DG AGRI sent a new letter outlining its observations on the restructuring plan it had received. The letter emphasized that “the authorities of your country provided an Excel table explaining in detail how each proposed individual action addresses the potentially serious deficiencies.” The Excel table also included objectives and milestones, as well as the implementation status of those that had already been achieved.
However, DG AGRI rejected the restructuring plan on the grounds that it “was not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies.”
“Following an analysis of the action plan and supplementary information provided by the Greek authorities in your June 2, 2025 letter, DG AGRI believes that the plan, as currently proposed, does not sufficiently address the deficiencies and therefore does not comply with Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/129,” the DG AGRI letter states. Meanwhile, the Commission sounded the alarm once again over a possible suspension of payments.
“In accordance with Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2116, the Commission may adopt implementing acts suspending the monthly payments referred to in Article 21(3) or the interim payments referred to in Article 32 of the same Regulation if a Member State fails to submit the action plan referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article,” the letter emphasizes.
The Commission’s Letter Rejecting the Restructuring Plan
