Mainly due to the outstanding activities of Cretan “farmers”, Greece has been fined 392 million for subsidy fraud – that is 20% of this year’s income tax payments.
Fine of 392 million euros imposed on Greece for poor management of EU subsidies
The European Commission has slapped Greece with a 392 million euro penalty. This comes from failures to properly manage EU agricultural subsidies between 2016 and 2023.
They found violations of EU laws that govern funding under the Common Agricultural Policy. The main issue is pretty systemic: Greece just hasn’t kept enough oversight of subsidy controls.
Because of this, the Commission applied a flat 5% cut on future subsidy payments to Greece. For aid given in 2018, 2019, and 2020 to young farmers, the penalty shoots up to 10%.
The biggest part of the penalty relates to area-based subsidies for 2021 and 2022. Deductions of 79 million euros and 76 million euros were recorded for those years.
No individual farmers were found at fault, so it’s likely the national budget will take the hit. If the cuts landed directly on farmers’ grants, it would get ugly—politically and otherwise.
Next year, Greece was set to get about 1.9 billion euros in direct EU payments. Nearly a quarter of that will be withheld as part of the penalty.
This reduction is tied to payments not made according to EU rules, or where there wasn’t enough verification of who actually got the money. Officials in the agricultural sector warn this fine might not be the last.
Further sanctions from the European Commission could be coming. Greece’s appeal against an earlier similar penalty was already shot down by the EU’s Court of Justice this year, and they’ve been ordered to pay legal fees as well.
It’s worth mentioning the fine doesn’t cover separate cases involving allegedly fake claims for grazing land by supposed new farmers. Those are still under investigation by the European Public Prosecutor and are in the hands of the courts.
Other Member States
The European Commission’s decision from 11 June isn’t just about Greece—it hits several other EU countries too. The list includes:
- Bulgaria
- France
- Denmark
- Spain
- Croatia
- Czech Republic
- Hungary
- Romania
- Portugal
- Sweden
- Slovakia
- Lithuania
- Netherlands
Greece, though, faces the largest financial penalty by a long shot. The other countries get off with much lower fines or adjustments.
The Commission pointed out irregularities in how these nations managed community agricultural subsidies. But the scale and impact really vary from place to place.
Some countries had insufficient checks on how the funds were used, especially when it came to environmental requirements tied to subsidies. These discrepancies led to different corrective measures and penalties, depending on how bad things were in each country.
Country |
Issue Focus |
Penalty Size |
Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
Greece |
Poor management, weak controls |
Highest (€392 million) |
Severe flaws highlighted |
Others (e.g. Bulgaria, France) |
Incomplete checks, irregularities |
Lower fines or warnings |
Problems less extensive |
The general public pays, the fraudsters have cashed in
Whenever there’s a scandal about agricultural subsidies, people expect those responsible to get what’s coming to them. There’s this idea that anyone who got illegal payments will pay fines or cough up the money, and that officials who let it slide will be held accountable.
But honestly, that almost never happens. Instead, the cost lands on everyone else—higher taxes, more national debt, you name it.
The government might have to cover millions in fines from the European Commission for subsidy fraud. These amounts aren’t usually clawed back from the folks who got the illegal aid.
Taxpayers end up footing the bill, whether they knew about the fraud or not. It’s a bit maddening, isn’t it?
Who Really Pays?
Group |
Responsibility |
Actual Outcome |
|---|---|---|
Illegal recipients |
Return subsidies; face penalties |
Often avoid full repayment or jail |
Government officials |
Investigated and punished |
Rarely face serious consequences |
Taxpayers |
Indirectly affected |
Pay fines through tax increases |
See the gap? What seems fair—making the actual beneficiaries pay—almost never lines up with reality.
Historical Examples
There have been a few cases where someone high up actually faced consequences. Like that former deputy finance minister sent to prison for a subsidy-related crime back in the 1990s.
But honestly, that’s the exception. More recent fines, often in the hundreds of millions, just mean higher taxes for everyone else. Those who claimed vast tracts of land without justification? They’re rarely forced to repay or face serious punishment.
The Political Response
When scandals break, politicians do their best to dodge direct responsibility. You’ll hear phrases like “it’s not what you think” or “there are complexities to consider”, which just seem to soften the blow.
Then come the delays—parliament, courts, you name it. Everything slows down, and the odds of real action against the guilty drop even further. It’s no wonder there’s a sense of impunity among those who game the system.
Future Outlook
Some folks still hope for reforms and tighter controls. They take comfort in official promises that things will be different next time.
But there’s a lot of skepticism. Despite all the previous fines and scandals, not much actually changes once the headlines fade.
New ways to bend the rules keep popping up, sometimes hidden by legal loopholes or bureaucracy. Political interests protect certain groups, and the cycle continues.
Simple Truths
- The taxpayers carry the real cost of subsidy fraud.
- Those responsible, whether recipients or officials, rarely face full penalties.
- Political promises of reform often fall short.
- Repeated scandals suggest systemic issues, not isolated errors.
Knowing this helps set expectations. And honestly, it just makes the case for stronger oversight and accountability even clearer.
European Public Prosecutor’s Office files charges against former agriculture ministers in Greek parliament
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has handed over an investigative file to the Greek Parliament. It involves allegations against two former Ministers of Rural Development and Food.
This case revolves around possible criminal offences tied to the handling of agricultural subsidies by OPEKEPE, the Greek agency for agricultural payments. The file names former ministers Makis Voridis and Lefteris Avgerakis.
The EPPO sent the case via the Greek Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office, after signs of potential wrongdoing during their time in office. The investigation digs into an alleged organised fraud scheme involving agricultural funds.
There are also suspicions of corruption among public officials linked to OPEKEPE. The inquiry suggests these former ministers may have been involved in illegal actions while in office.
Under Article 86 of the Greek Constitution, if a criminal investigation finds evidence of offences by ministers during their term, the case file has to be sent straight to Parliament. This rule applies even if they’re no longer in office.
That constitutional clause limits the EPPO’s reach—Parliament has to approve or act before legal measures can be taken against ministers, whether current or former.
Key Points:
Aspect |
Details |
|---|---|
Investigation Body |
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) |
Accused Individuals |
Makis Voridis, Lefteris Avgerakis |
Alleged Crimes |
Fraud concerning agricultural subsidies, corruption |
Legal Framework |
Article 86 of the Greek Constitution |
Procedure |
File sent to Greek Parliament via the Supreme Court |
Scope of Investigation |
Actions during ministerial tenure |
The file now demands parliamentary scrutiny to see if there’s criminal responsibility. It highlights the protocols for investigating high-ranking officials and the part European institutions play in all this.
What happens next? Parliament decides if criminal charges or other legal steps are on the table.
How police investigations into the OPEKEPE scandal were obstructed
Over the past three years, the Greek Economic Police carried out four undercover investigations into suspected fraud involving OPEKEPE. That’s the agency handling EU agricultural subsidies.
They looked at 245 different land registries, zeroing in on irregularities in grazing land claims. Three reports came from Athens Economic Police, one from Thessaloniki.
Their findings were messy, revealing big efforts to block police from getting to the truth. After a lot of persistence, authorities finally authorized phone surveillance of suspected government officials tied to the case.
Key points from the Economic Police findings:
- False land claims: Investigators found cases where subsidies were paid for grazing lands that either did not exist or were falsely declared.
- Incorrect beneficiaries: Large sums were given to recipients who failed to meet eligibility rules.
- Use of multiple land registries: These false claims appeared across hundreds of different registries, making detection and verification difficult.
- Phone monitoring: Due to systematic obstruction, wiretaps were used to collect evidence and monitor the activities of suspicious individuals.
The data from these reports fed directly into broader judicial actions. Investigations by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office were among the outcomes.
Preliminary figures suggest that since 2017, over €170 million was misallocated. This happened through fictitious land declarations or fraudulent subsidy claims—an eye-watering amount, really.
Table: Overview of the Four Economic Police Investigations
Investigation Unit |
Focus Area |
Main Findings |
Methods Used |
|---|---|---|---|
Athens Economic Police 1 |
Grazing lands in various regions |
Fake grazing land declarations |
Land registry checks, analysis |
Athens Economic Police 2 |
Suspected government officials |
Suspected obstruction and fraud |
Phone surveillance |
Athens Economic Police 3 |
Cross-check of subsidy recipients |
False beneficiary claims |
Data comparison, interviews |
Thessaloniki Unit |
Grazing land records in Northern Greece |
Non-existent lands recorded |
Forensic auditing, surveillance |
Obstruction kept cropping up in these investigations.
Officials tied to the subsidy process apparently used delay tactics and spread misinformation, making it tough for investigators to gather evidence.
This kind of resistance pushed the police to ramp up their surveillance and get more creative with their methods.
The grazing land scandal, honestly, just exposes how shaky the subsidy payment system really is.
People found loopholes, took advantage of the lack of oversight, and ended up pocketing huge sums they shouldn’t have.
Those four confidential police reports paint a picture of a scheme that’s more tangled and stubborn than most would expect.
