Evidence of guilt of the former minister was not found. Nikos Pappa for his manipulations in the case of television licenses, prosecutor Olga Smyrlis stated in her speech at the Special Court, speaking of “spreading the indictment”.

The Prosecutor of the Special Court, having assessed all the evidence (testimonies, documents, etc.), argued that the tender for television licenses was carried out in full transparency and compliance with the law and that there was no interference from the Minister for a favorable attitude towards the company Ioannis Vladimiros Kalogritsa, who participated in the competition and was among the four main contenders.

“On no side,” the prosecutor stressed, “is there any evidence of any action on the part of Nikos Pappas in favor of Ioannis Vladimiros Kalogritsas before the end of the competition, for example, additional installments to pay the price or anything else.

After the end of the competition, Ioannis Vladimiros Kalogritsas (the son of entrepreneur Christos Kalogrits) also became the leader among the four, and the competent commission once again checked the conditions for participation in the competition, not finding anything shameful.”

According to the prosecutor, there was no witness testimony or any other evidence of any interference by Nikos Pappus in the competition, while stressing that the fact that his son Christos Kalogrits’ company ultimately failed to provide money and obtain a TV license is evidence that, in her opinion, “destroys the indictment”.

“Nikos Pappas should not have controlled the conditions for participation in the competition himself,” the prosecutor emphasized. On the contrary, he was obliged to abstain. If he were to check it himself, it would be completely contrary to the transparency of the competition and would raise suspicions of bias. Moreover, the fact that Kalogritsa did not receive a license in the end because it could not pay the price completely refutes the accusation. At this point, we must stop investigating the violation of official duties by Nikolaos Papp,” prosecutor Olga Smyrli said.

With regard to the much-discussed e-mails presented at trial by Christos Kalogritz, Ms. Smirley suggested that they be ignored, as was the testimony of businessman Christos Kalogritz against Nikos Pappas, emphasizing, among other things, that “During the hearing, no evidence was obtained to support the allegation co-defendant businessman Christos Kalogritsa that he acted behind the scenes to implement a plan to create a TV channel.

The prosecutor spoke about the civil dispute between Christos Kalogritsa and Khouri’s group over 3 million euros (they were given for a letter of guarantee so that Kalogritsa’s son could take part in the competition), emphasizing that “nothing comes out of Nikos Pappa – Kalogritsa”, pointing out that “The Special Court misjudged the civil dispute, stating that “we don’t care if it’s fictitious or real.”

The prosecutor argued that kr. Kalogritsas is seeking, through litigation in the Special Court, to overturn the conviction against him by the Court of Arbitration, which acquitted Khouri and ordered him to pay 3 million euros.
It is expected that the interrogation of the prosecutor will be completed later.

Statement by Nikos Pappas

Former minister of state during the SYRIZA administration, Nikos Pappas, speaks of a “political case” and “political persecution” in his statement before the hearing – the proposal of the prosecutor Olga Smyrlis in the Special Court.

The former minister, who is on trial for dereliction of duty along with co-defendant businessman Christos Kalogritz in the television license competition case, says in his statement, among other things.

“I consider it my duty to testify to you my assessment. My position on this case is clear from the outset. This is a political matter and I take it politically.

As for its origin, it became obvious that this case was and is an attempt by my political opponents to offend me personally, as well as the party to which I belong. This position of mine was resolutely confirmed.

My political opponents have even accused me of taking bribes in a tender that brought me hundreds of millions of euros to the Greek state, while previous governments received no amount for the public good. And for the first time in parliamentary history, my political persecutors were forced to withdraw the mentioned dishonorable accusation, which they themselves fabricated.

For his part, MP Andreas Loverdos, who is defending businessman Christos Kalogritsa as a lawyer, said in a statement that although he was the leader of his party in Parliament in “quasi” court cases, “in this case I refused to take any participation because I didn’t want one of my qualities to contradict or use another.” Referring to Nikos Pappas’s statement to the Special Court, he described it as an “apology lawsuit” aimed at politicizing the trial and marginalizing breach of duty.”

Proposal of the Prosecution

Prior to the completion of the tender process, no preferential treatment was received from Kalogritsa’s son’s company, which participated in the tender and was included among the four bidders who received permission after the tender process.

There is no evidence on either side of any action on the part of Nikos Pappas in favor of Ioannis Vladimiros Kalogritsas until the end of the competition, such as additional contributions to pay the price or anything else.

After the end of the competition, Ioannis Vladimiros Kalogritsas was in the top four as the main contender, and the competent commission once again checked the conditions for participation in the competition, not finding anything wrong.

During the proceedings before the Special Court, it was argued that the land plot in Ithaca offered by the Kalogritz party for lending by credit institutions was worth 100 million euros and was in no way “pasture”.

Nikos Pappas did not have to control the conditions of participation in the competition himself. On the contrary, he was obliged to abstain. If he were to check it himself, it would be completely contrary to the transparency of the competition and would raise suspicions of bias.

Moreover, the fact that Kalogritsa did not receive a license in the end because it could not pay the price completely refutes the accusation.

Here we must stop the investigation of Nikolaos Pappus’ breach of duty.

However, we have to evaluate some other aspects of the case, if they were related to the tender process and the involvement of Nikos Papp in actions in favor of the Kalogritsa company.

Before us is a civil dispute between Christos Kalogritsa and the CCC company (Khoury group), which reached the arbitration court.

Defendant Christos Kalogritsas failed to appear in court and was sentenced to pay Khoury’s group 3 million euros.

Today, the presentation of the prosecutor on the guilt or innocence of the defendants

“On a political matter” and “political persecution” former Minister of State during the reign of SYRIZA Nikos Pappas says in his statement before the hearing – the proposal of the prosecutor Olga Smyrlis before the Special Court.

The former minister on trial for dereliction of duty, with businessman Christos Kalogritz as co-defendant in a television license tender case, said in a statement, among other things.

“I consider it my duty to testify to you my assessment. My position on this case is clear from the outset. This is a political matter, and I am doing it politically.

As for his birth, it became obvious that this case was and is an attempt by my political opponents to offend me personally. as well as the party to which I belong. This position of mine was resolutely confirmed.

My political opponents have even accused me of taking bribes in a tender that brought me hundreds of millions of euros to the Greek state, while previous governments received no amount for the public good. And for the first time in parliamentary history, my political persecutors were forced to withdraw this dishonorable accusation, which they themselves fabricated.

For his part, MP Andreas Loverdos, who is defending businessman Christos Kalogritsa as a lawyer in court, said in a statement that although he was the leader of his party in a particular case, he refused to participate in any political process. (pre-investigation commission of the parliamentary or party process), so that there is no conflict between the qualities of a politician and a businessman’s lawyer.

Andreas Loverdos, referring to the statement of Nikos Pappas in the Special Court, described it as “a lawsuit with apologies” that aims to politicize the trial and marginalize breach of duty.”