The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), headed by European Attorney General Laura Kovesi, passed the counterattack on the recent decision of the 11 member Supreme Judicial Board (PSC) Political and Criminal Justice of the Supreme Court to extend for a period of two years the term of office of the three Greek authorised European prosecutors, not taking into account and not complying with the decision of the College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office which renewed their term of office for five years.
Appeal
EPPO appealed to the Administrative Assembly of the Supreme Court and asks that the decision of the Administrative Board be annulled for the two-year extension of the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors, Papis Papandreou, Charicleia Thanu and Dionysium Musack. The case will be discussed in the Supreme Court at the last trial before the end of the current court year (30 June 2026).
Last November the College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, set up by the European Attorney General and 24 European prosecutors, one of the participating EU countries, had renewed unanimously (after Mrs. Kovesi's proposal) for a five-year term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors. This decision of the College had caused the discomfort of Greek judicial and prosecutorial officials of the Supreme Court.
However, Justice Minister George Floridis observed the formal procedure, pending the end of the term of office of these three Greek mandated European prosecutors at the end of June, and sent the relevant questions to the Supreme Court.
The 11-member Board of Directors met last month (11.5.2026) and unanimously extended the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors for a two-year period. The AACS was attended by the President of the Supreme Court Anastasia Papadopoulou as well as the High Criminal Court prosecutor Konstantinos Javellas, while rapporteur was the Vice-President Panayiotis Lyberopoulos.
Of the 11 senior judicial officers who participated in the AACC it was considered that the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors should be extended and remain in the power of the EPO for two more years, until they have completed the pending documents in their hands.
The members of the AAC at the beginning of that day’s meeting first examined whether or not the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors should be extended. Then, after the green light was given, the time was determined to extend their term of office for a two-year period.
This is because the members of the Administrative Board considered that, in accordance with the Constitution and the legislation, the competence to renew and extend or not the term of office of the European Prosecutors falls within the exclusive competence of the Administrative Board.
Thus, the latter did not renew the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors for a five-year period, as decided by the College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, but chose to extend their term for a two-year period.
The question of the renewal of the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors has occupied the political and judicial world in recent times, due to the petitions sent by the Euro-democrat to Parliament on the subject of OPEKEPE.
However, EPPO submitted to the Supreme Court a request to cancel the decision of the Administrative Board to extend the mandate of the three Greek European prosecutors for two years. It argues that the only body responsible for renewing their term of office is the College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, which has already decided on a five-year extension.
EPPO further argues that the Board of Directors of Article 90 of the Constitution is responsible only for the promotions, placements, transfers, etc. of Greek judges and prosecutors, within the Greek territory and not for the term of office of the Greek courts serving the European institution, for which specific provisions of European law apply. Much more so when the Greek judges have already been appointed to European positions, with the legal and envisaged EU procedure.
At the same time, the EPPO emphasises that the European regulation refers to a five-year renewal of the mandated European prosecutors and not to an extension of their term of office, as the AAC did. The EPO points out that the IACC has moved outside European jurisdiction, thereby violating European rules and in particular Regulation 2017/1939 and Directive 2017/1371 of 5 July 2017, legal rules which prevail over Greek legislation.
According to the EPPO, instead of deciding to extend the term of office of the three Greek European prosecutors, the Board had to send a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The answer
On the other hand, judges of the Supreme Court speaking to ‘THEME’ They pointed out that the EPPO’s request was admissible (of legitimate interest) as it was exercised by an institution which has no party’s capacity. This is because the administrative assembly of the Supreme Court had to have the same three Greek mandated European prosecutors against the decision of the Administrative Board and not third parties, such as EPPO.
In addition, our interlocutors add that, with the action of EPPO to appeal to the administrative assembly of the Supreme Court, it recognises essentially that it is responsible for renewing or extending the mandate of the Greek European prosecutors that is the Board of Directors and not the College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
Photos: EUROKINISSI