According to reports, as part of the preliminary investigation, the GSEE president’s side submitted written explanations regarding the case, and, after reviewing the evidence, the prosecutor in charge determined that there was no evidence that the specific criminal offense had been committed.
The case file has now been forwarded to the Appellate Prosecutor’s Office so that the decision to close the case can be formalized.
As for the other two individuals under investigation for inaccurate or incomplete declarations of assets, two separate case files have been opened, and the related investigation is still ongoing.
Referring to developments in the case, Yannis Panagopoulos argued that a public debate has recently unfolded at his expense, which, as he notes, was based on leaks, non-papers, and speculation, even before the institutional process had been completed and without any official findings having been communicated to him.
As reported, regarding the so-called case involving the failure to file a declaration of assets and the concealment of income amounting to 3.2 million euros, after he provided his explanations and all the evidence was reviewed, the prosecutor in charge closed the case.
According to him, this development confirms that no evidence has emerged sufficient to substantiate any violation and, consequently, there is no reason for a further criminal investigation. In fact, he notes that a case that for weeks was presented as a «serious allegation» and a «major scandal» was ultimately closed without any grounds for criminal prosecution.
The president of the GSEE also refers to an earlier case, for which a freezing order had been issued, noting that to date he has not been asked to review any findings, while the appeal filed against that specific order is still pending.
Nevertheless, as he argues, in the public discourse these cases were presented as if they were already final, which—in his view—did not correspond to reality. As he notes, even before the courts had ruled, some had already taken the outcome for granted—and at a time that can hardly be considered a coincidence.
In his statement, he links the first organized public disclosure of the relevant allegations to the parliamentary debate on the reinstatement of collective bargaining agreements, with an enhanced role for the GSEE, referring to a development of historic significance that restores rights and affects hundreds of thousands of workers. As he notes, this coincidence in timing raises reasonable and serious questions.
He also makes special mention of the head of the Independent Authority, Mr. Vourliotis, noting that since the relevant information or allegations are said to have originated there, then a major institutional issue arises. As he emphasizes, an Independent Authority must operate with neutrality, transparency, and respect for established procedures—not through leaks and the creation of public perceptions before the case has been fully adjudicated.
According to Mr. Panagopoulos, when these principles are not upheld, it is not just one individual who is harmed, but the credibility of the institutions as a whole and the public’s trust in the rule of law. He also raises the question of why, at such a critical moment for the world of work, an attempt was made—as he argues—to shift the public debate away from the substantive issues at stake and into the realm of impressions and skepticism.
He emphasizes that the key issue for him remains the strengthening of collective bargaining, restoring workers’ rights, and maintaining a strong and independent labor movement. In this context, he notes that he expected the backlash, pressure, and attacks, but stresses that the response cannot be to back down.
In closing, the president of the GSEE states that he will continue to carry out his duties with even greater determination, speaking clearly and acting with institutional consistency, fully aware of the responsibility that—as he puts it—has been entrusted to him by the workers. At the same time, he announces that, in collaboration with his legal advisors, he will utilize every legal means to investigate the matter and protect both his personal reputation and the institutional role he represents.
«My trust in the justice system is a given,» he says, adding that his commitment to continuing his work for workers without interruption is equally unwavering, because—as he concludes—in the end, it is not a person who is judged, but «the power and voice of labor.».
