What was the basis of the AADE Disciplinary Council's decision?
The AADE Disciplinary Council issued a unanimous ruling to acquit Paraskevi Tyxeropoulou of all alleged misconduct, providing a full legal vindication. According to the Council's decision 131/08.10.2026, the five-member body formally accepted her petition for review, which resulted in the total erasure of the disciplinary decision previously imposed by the former President of OPEKEPE, Kyriakos Bambasidis.
The Council's decision was presided over by an appellate prosecutor and focused on both the formal and substantive aspects of the case. By granting the review, the Council determined that the charges brought against Tyxeropoulou lacked merit. This decision effectively overturns the disciplinary sanctions that had been applied to her during her tenure as the Director of Internal Audit at OPEKEPE.
The legal mechanism of the acquittal
The acquittal was achieved through a formal petition for review, a process that allows a disciplinary body to re-examine previous decisions if new evidence or legal errors are presented. In this instance, the Council did not merely mitigate the previous punishment but declared her entirely innocent of the specific infractions cited by the OPEKEPE administration. This level of exoneration is significant as it addresses the legality of the initial prosecution.
Why was Paraskevi Tyxeropoulou facing disciplinary action?
The disciplinary proceedings against Tyxeropoulou originated from her decision to report inspection deficiencies to the Deputy Auditor General. While serving as the Director of Internal Audit at OPEKEPE, she submitted an audit report detailing significant flaws in the inspection of livestock capital in Crete. This report was delivered to the Deputy Auditor General of the Court of Audit, an action that triggered a retaliatory response from the then-management.
The management, led by Kyriakos Bambasidis, accused her of violating professional secrecy and engaging in behavior deemed unworthy of an official. These charges were subsequently used to justify disciplinary sanctions, which were later enforced by the succeeding President of the organization, Mr. Salata. The core of the conflict lies in whether the disclosure of audit findings to a competent oversight authority constitutes a breach of duty or a necessary act of transparency.
What is the connection between this case and the OPEKEPE scandal?
The legal battle surrounding Tyxeropoulou is deeply intertwined with the broader OPEKEPE scandal, which involved systemic irregularities in the management of agricultural funds. Her role as the Director of Internal Audit placed her at the center of the investigation, as her findings provided critical evidence that supported inquiries by the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO). The prosecution against her is viewed by her legal representatives as a direct consequence of her cooperation with these investigative bodies.
Her lawyer has characterized the actions taken by the OPEKEPE management as a targeted campaign of professional devaluation. The defense argues that the administration sought to punish an employee who performed her oversight duties effectively. Consequently, the Tyxeropoulou case has become a litmus test for how Greek institutions handle whistleblowers who expose internal corruption or administrative failures that affect European Union interests.
How has the Greek judiciary responded to the management's actions?
The Greek judicial system has previously ruled against the management's treatment of Tyxeropoulou, marking this as a recurring legal defeat for the OPEKEPE administration. Prior to the AADE decision, the Single-Member Court of First Instance in Athens issued decision 411/2026, which declared her removal from the Internal Audit Directorate to be illegal, abusive, and retaliatory. That court ordered her reinstatement to her position.
Despite the court's mandate for reinstatement, there has been ongoing friction regarding the implementation of these rulings. The lawyer for Tyxeropoulou noted that the Governor of the AADE, Mr. Pitsilis, has reportedly refused to implement the court's order, thereby maintaining the professional marginalization of the former director. This refusal creates a complex legal standoff between judicial mandates and administrative execution.
The struggle for professional reinstatement
The legal victory is not just about the removal of a disciplinary record; it is about the restoration of professional status. The defense argues that merely erasing the penalty is insufficient if the employee remains sidelined. They are calling for a substantive return to duties that match her specialized experience and audit expertise, arguing that the administrative resistance prevents a full legal remedy.
What are the implications for whistleblower protection in Greece?
The outcome of the Tyxeropoulou case serves as a critical benchmark for the institutional credibility of Greek regulatory bodies. For those advocating for the
