A request submitted by POGEDY (Panhellenic Federation of Public Sector Geotechnicians) to the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (IADP)—filed on February 9, 2026, and left entirely unanswered—appears to be setting the authority ablaze, as information indicates the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) is entering the fold by issuing similar, even more detailed inquiries. The issue is particularly serious, as the core questions raised by POGEDY, and now by European Prosecutors, directly challenge the legality of pasture allocations and grazing subsidies disbursed for 2025.
Widespread concern
The intervention of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, according to well-informed sources, appears to be triggering deep concern within the IADP, raising questions about what was paid out in 2025 and whether those disbursements were legally warranted. This anxiety stems from the impossibility of predicting what next steps European Prosecutors might take if non-compliant payments are officially verified.
The core questions
It is worth noting that POGEDY had highlighted how investigative journalism reports exposed reasonable and critical questions regarding:
-
the total number of tax identification numbers (AFM) receiving pasture subsidies for the year 2025,
-
the true matching of declared livestock,
-
the utilization of feed invoices as eligibility criteria, and
-
the exact method and authority responsible for executing the pasture allocation.
Data requested
Given that POGEDY claims the IADP reportedly possesses aggregate data and has already forwarded relevant information to auditing and institutional bodies, the federation requested an immediate and public position on the following specific points:
-
Full disclosure regarding the 2025 subsidy year concerning:
-
the number of beneficiaries paid pasture subsidies, broken down by geographic region,
-
the total count of declared animals submitted by these beneficiaries,
-
the aggregate monetary value of the submitted feed invoices, and
-
the total value of entitlements and subsidy disbursements paid out.
-
Explicit clarification as to which entity carried out the pasture allocation (IADP, OPEKEPE, Ministry of Rural Development and Food, or another agency), under what statutory mandate, and under whose supervision the procedure was conducted.
-
Clear and unequivocal reassurance that the provisions set forth in the active Joint Ministerial Decision on pasture eligibility were strictly and uniformly applied to all livestock farmers without exceptions, deviations, or selective interpretations that could compromise equal treatment and transparency.
As is evident, these requested details were never provided. The fact that the European Public Prosecutor's Office acted roughly seven months later indicates that it was either monitoring the case from the outset or is investigating on the basis of formal complaints.
Nikos Karoutzos
nkaroutzos@gmail.com
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments