The conclusion of the National Transparency Authority on the “717” contract was addressed to ERGOSE, while the then Minister of Infrastructure and Transport K. Karamanlis was communicated for information, the deputy commander of the National Transparency Authority (NDA) stated in her testimony to the commission of inquiry for “the investigation of the crime of Tempe”, Alexandra Rogaku.

“We communicated our relevant document for action to the competent Prosecutor’s Office and ERGOSE and communicated it to the competent minister for information” said the current head of the EAD.

As Ms. Rogaku said, the Authority received from the Prosecutor’s Office of Appeals (Economic Crime Section) an order to check whether the “717” contract, which was signed on 26/9/14 and was to be delivered on 26 /9/16. He noted that the order was initially given to the Public Administration Auditors’ Body on 7/3/19 and after its establishment, the order was given to the EAD, with no action taken in the meantime. Subsequently, Mrs. Rogaku referred to the conclusions of the Authority, which included the failure to meet mandatory deadlines, the failure to foresee the sufficiency of spare parts, thefts and vandalism as well as prometric errors mainly in the remote control of Athens and Larissa.

He even emphasized that the Authority proposed – among other things – disciplinary proceedings against 18 employees of ERGOSE mainly for failure to meet contractual deadlines. Asked if ERGOSE brought these prosecutions, Ms. Rogaku said 18 people were held accountable: Three people had left due to retirement. 15 people were prosecuted by ERGOSE. The 11 were dismissed by decision of the managing director. For four people the chief executive imposed the maximum penalty he could impose under the regulation, which is 10 days absence from duty. These four persons appealed to the disciplinary board, which acquitted them.

When asked if the minister participated in this whole process, Mrs. Rogaku answered in the negative.

As for whether the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is turning against the Authority, Ms. Rogaku said that we were surprised to learn from the (European Public Prosecutor’s Office) website about a possible breach of duty by the inspector who drew up our conclusion. Ms. Rogaku noted that the EAD had supported the work of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office with all the evidence, and that she and the Inspector of the Authority had visited the office of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Athens, “to express our bitterness”. “If there was an error and let’s see it, but the inspector was never called to give his opinion […] and in our opinion, (this element of the conclusion of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office) is that unfair and unfounded,” said Ms. Rogaku.