- Why did the private company responsible for maintaining the Hellenic Police’s helicopters refuse to hand them over?
- Arrests and judicial intervention.
- This confirms the Data Journalists’ investigation into the problems arising from the “privatisation” of the Armed Forces’ and Security Services’ aerial assets.
By Paris Karvounopoulos
On September 1, Data Journalists published an investigation titled “Why police helicopters have been missing for months”. The article highlighted the serious problems caused by outsourcing the maintenance of these assets to private contractors.
Six months later, everything reported in the investigation was confirmed in an almost absurd manner.
On March 19, 2026, the Hellenic Police, assisted by the judicial authorities, were forced to carry out an “operation to liberate” their helicopters, which had been held for maintenance at the facilities of a private company in Pachí, Megara. The documentary photograph published by Data Journalists is from that operation.
What preceded it
Γιατί έχουν εξαφανιστεί εδώ και μήνες τα ελικόπτερα της Αστυνομίας
The private company responsible for maintaining the Hellenic Police’s helicopters refused to sign the contract renewal, which was a unilateral extension. The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), which was involved in the agreement, informed the Ministry of Public Order, as well as the leadership of the Police and Fire Service. The Fire Service also maintains helicopters through the same company.
In a letter, the NSPA proposed a “roadmap” for resolving the situation and returning the helicopters to operational service. The letter stated that, in the absence of a response — whether positive or negative — to the proposal by November 7, 2025, the NSPA would terminate its framework cooperation agreement with the private company.
In response, the political head of the police force sent a letter requesting the termination of the framework agreement with the NSPA, and the initiation of a new tender process for the technical maintenance of Hellenic police helicopters.
After November 7, the political head of the Fire Service also wrote to the NSPA, requesting the launch of a tender process for the technical maintenance of Fire Service helicopters.
The NSPA replied to both parties that it would begin procedures for separate tenders, which are expected to be completed by the end of 2027.
The Hellenic Police requested the return of its aircraft, something the Fire Service did not do, as it had already initiated procedures for a direct award under Article 32 of the law. This was aimed at reassigning the contract to the same company for a budget of €1.9 million over 18 months beginning in March 2026. Paradoxically, although the private company refused to sign an extension to the existing contract with the NSPA on June 1, 2025 for the technical maintenance of its helicopters, demanding a revision of the pricing terms, it nevertheless continued to maintain the Fire Service’s helicopters without an active contract from June 1, 2025 until March 2026. At this point, the Fire Service awarded the technical maintenance contract to the same company until the end of 2027. The cost remains unknown…
In a letter to the company, the NSPA informed the company that it was terminating their framework agreement with effect from November 7, 2025 and requested that the company return the Hellenic Police aircraft to their owners by March 2, 2026.
After notifying the company owner by letter that they would arrive to take delivery of the helicopters on March 2, 2026, the Hellenic Police received a reply requesting a 10-day extension to prepare the helicopters for handover.
The Hellenic Police responded that, while the company’s request for a 10-day extension was not justified by any contractual obligation, they nevertheless accepted it and granted a 14-day extension, setting March 16, as the official handover date for the aircraft.
On March 16, 2026, a delegation accompanied by the handover-receipt committee went to the company’s facilities at the Pachí Megara airfield, only to be met with a refusal to hand over the helicopters. The company argued that the Hellenic Police committee lacked authorisation from the NSPA since the letter it had received regarding the transfer of the aircraft did not include the names of the committee members. The committee left the company’s premises empty-handed.
The following day, March 17, 2026, the NSPA sent the company a letter listing the authorised committee members.
On the same day, the Hellenic Police sent a letter to the company informing them that the committee would return to the facilities on March 18 to proceed with the handover process.
On March 18, the committee returned to the company’s facilities at the Pachí Megara airfield. An employee informed them that the handover process would not take place because the company owner was absent due to a court case.
Following this, and after informing the police leadership, the Chief of Police visited the Chief Prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance and submitted a briefing note outlining the events. The prosecutor ordered a preliminary investigation into alleged embezzlement under Article 375 of the Penal Code and dispatched a judicial official to the company’s facilities to conduct an inquiry. During the investigation, the company owner was arrested and brought before the prosecutor under summary proceedings. The following day, he was released as he was deemed to have a known place of residence. Meanwhile, in Pachí, the “liberation of the Hellenic Police helicopters” was underway.
Although the case has now been referred to the courts, it raises many questions about the decisions being made in critical and sensitive areas of the state, such as the armed forces and security services.
With the rapid expansion of private actors within the Armed Forces, one can only imagine the consequences if military aircraft were “trapped” in private facilities with incomplete maintenance during a crisis. Who would be held accountable, and who could compel private companies to work beyond their usual schedules to make military aircraft operational again? These are not theoretical concerns: similar situations have occurred in the past when private involvement in the state was far less extensive. During the Imia crisis, for instance, the Navy urgently requested that a private company based in Thrace open its facilities at night to deliver materials essential for submarine torpedoes. While the private actors were cooperative at the time, no one can guarantee how other private companies might behave in future.
The problem of privatisation in the technical maintenance of Armed Forces equipment has another very serious dimension. Private companies looking to enter this sector recruit their specialist personnel from within the Armed Forces. This is for two reasons: firstly, this personnel is highly experienced and skilled, particularly with regard to aircraft, and secondly, they are significantly cheaper than private sector personnel. Consequently, the Armed Forces are experiencing an uncontrollable “brain drain” of valuable technical staff.
One unanswered question is how a private citizen or company that refuses to hand over police aircraft can later receive the contract for maintaining Fire Service aircraft through a direct award. After all these events, how can such an entity still be considered reliable enough to provide services to security forces, the Armed Forces and the NSPA?
