The appeal brought by ADE against the decision of the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance that was found illegal and abusive the dismissal of Friday, by the Directorate of Technical Controls of OPEKEPE, denounces her lawyer, Antonis Vayanos.
Mr. Vayanos is talking about «surprise» and «reasonable consideration», since the move of the ADE, which now includes the services of OPEKEPE and calls for the restoration of Ms.Kurkopoulou's job position, which is a key witness in many OPEKEPE cases and a partner of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in the two major cases for the involvement of political persons in the scandal.
Antonis Vayanou's announcement:
«With surprise and reasonable concern, we are informed of the appeal of AADE against the decision of the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance, which was found illegal and abusive in the dismissal of P. Luckyopoulou and ordered its reposition to the post of Director of Internal Audit.
And we ask: What exactly does the Governor of AADE defend by insulting the decision of the Single-Member Court? Does he defend the actions of the Administration of the former President of OPEKEPE, Mr. Babasidis against P. Luckyopoulou? He defends his judgment on supposed «Staff shortage» Her? Does it defend its demarcation and targeting, despite its excellent assessments, without any disciplinary investigation and despite its assistance in the investigations of the European Public Prosecutor's Office? And if it does defend all of this, why does it not reserve the same treatment for OPECEP executives in their positions, even though they are referred to as investigators in European Public Prosecutor's case files and information on their perjury has flooded the public sphere?
All are judged and ought to act in the light of justice and impartiality. However, Mr Pitsilis' attitude creates a reasonable picture of the application of different measures and stations: on the one hand, tolerance and institutional protection to persons publicly suspected of perjury and illegal behaviour and, on the other hand, full deprivation of any guarantee for P. Luckyopoulou, which, without any prior disciplinary or criminal involvement, was removed from its position and remains displaced outside of a new OPEC without control powers.
The contested decision to depose P. Luckyopoulou, which Mr. Pitsilis is still applying to this matter, does not fall under any prior disciplinary procedure or, of course, any judicial decision. On the contrary, it has proved to be an act of manifestly vindictive, directed against an official who carried out her duties, including cooperating with the European Public Prosecutor's Office. It is indicative of the magnitude of the malpractice that the reason for the dismissal is even the «Reasoned absence» This is precisely because of the cooperation with the EPPO. Is all this defensive?
If the Administration of the ADE considers that it cannot, due to the presumption of innocence, take disciplinary action against officials who are involved in the OPEKEPE scandal and remain in the positions of Chief Directorates or Departments, how can it consider it reasonable and legitimate administrative practice to depose P. Luckyopoulou without any objective evidence of illegality and without even prior disciplinary or judicial prosecution? How can institutional guarantees apply selectively to some and be bypassed in the case of P. Luckyopoulou, which unfortunately remains targeted even today despite the widely advertised transition of the OPEKEPE to AADE?
In relation to the treatment granted by ADE to P. Luckyopoulou, the following should be said:
On 31.3.2026, at the same time as the notification of the decision that justified P.Kurkopoulos, we addressed, in an institutional and consensual tone, a request for a meeting with the Governor Mr. Pitsilis and the responsible Chief Executive Mr. Kavvadas, for the sole purpose of finding a solution and ensuring proper compliance with the judicial crisis.
In response we received silence. Not only was not a meeting set, but for weeks AADE refused to even grant us a protocol number for our request. Finally, after repeated inconveniences, on 27.4.2026, at the same time as the rejection of our request for a meeting which the Office of the Commander of the AADE «does not consider it appropriate», we were informed that our 31.3.2026 request received a protocol number dated... 22.4.2026, i.e. 22 days after it was taken.
P. Luckyopoulou, as it turns out, is not entitled, in the perception of the Administration, even the elementary: no hearing, no institutional treatment, not even the formal administrative record of her request without persistent claim. This differentiation in relation to the treatment of other officials can only raise serious questions about the equal treatment and impartiality of the Administration.
Under these circumstances, the appeal shall not be regarded as an exercise of a legitimate remedy, but as an option to continue a manifestly unfair and already judicially rejected administrative practice. The Management of AADE seems to choose, instead of restoring legitimacy, the continuation and institutional coverage of acts of the previous investigation.
P. Luckyopoulou will continue to defend her rights by all legal means. And justice, as it has already proved, remains the final judge of all.
Athens, 4 May 2026
Her Plenipotentiary
Friday Luckyopoulou
Antonis Vayanos»
