“No criminal investigation or intervention can be initiated by the competent national authorities of EU member states participating in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) when the EPPO has commenced an investigation into a case.”
This is what the Attorney General said yesterday amid the furore surrounding the fiasco of the natural gas terminal construction in Vasilikos, responding to MPs’ demands for the Law Office to conduct a criminal investigation into the terminal affair.
In a written statement, Mr Savvides also noted: “On 28 March 2024, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the Attorney General of the Republic by letter that, exercising its powers under Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, it had initiated a criminal investigation into possible criminal offences committed by the contracting authority and/or the contractor and/or other parties involved in the procedures for awarding and executing the public contract for the study, construction and maintenance of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminal project in Cyprus.
According to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, which governs the establishment and operation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, ‘if the European Public Prosecutor’s Office decides to exercise its competence, the competent national authorities shall not exercise their own competence in respect of the same criminal conduct’.”
An entirely correct position. You read it and think, fair enough, what can the man do? Given that European regulations don’t permit it. Should he break the law to satisfy those thirsting for investigations?
Unfortunately for Mr Savvides, however, this represents a superficial approach to the matter. The substantive approach is quite different and leaves Cyprus’s prosecution service exposed.
The substance lies in the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office did what Cyprus’s Legal Service had failed to do. The substance lies in the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered an investigation on 28 March 2024, after the Audit Office published its relevant report on 19 January 2024.
The substance, Mr Savvides, is that the Attorney General’s Office had more than two months at its disposal to order that criminal investigation. It failed to do so, however. Even without the Audit Office report, the Attorney General’s Office should and could have ordered an investigation into such a monumental scandal—one whose roots trace back to 2018 when the tender was announced, with successive extensions granted in 2022 and 2023, whilst the €542 million project (excluding VAT) blatantly remained in grey areas.
One might forgive the Attorney General’s Office for failing to notice the scandal in previous years, or at least lacking the courage to act on its own initiative and order an investigation. But who can forgive it after the Audit Office published its report?
For the public to understand what the Audit Office recorded in that report, here is a small sample of its shocking findings:
“A. In a tender of colossal magnitude, satisfactory breadth of participation was not ensured, whilst insufficient development of competition was observed, as only one bidder proceeded to the evaluation stage. B. Very serious violations of public procurement legislation were identified during the bid evaluation stage. C. Delays in the project began with the contract signing. D. Despite serious delays by the contractor in the project, which our Service continuously highlighted in letters to ETYFA and in SEDE meetings where it participates as an observer, ETYFA provided cover for the contractor with assurances that it was taking the required measures to absorb delays and was committed to timely project completion.”
However one views it, it sounds absurd that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office grasped the irregularities and ordered an investigation into a case in an EU member state, whilst the local prosecution service failed to notice enough to order its own investigation.
For the umpteenth time, we are compelled to point out to the Attorney General that the cost to the Legal Service is manifold—due to the fact that this scandal too occurred under the previous administration, which was served as ministers by today’s heads of the Legal Service. Now try convincing every sceptic that this fact bears no relation to the Law Office’s failure to order a criminal investigation.
The major question, however, beyond the criminal investigation, is what will happen regarding political responsibilities. These concern those who took the political decision, those who ignored the Audit Office’s clear warnings, those who whitewashed all the grey areas and shadows surrounding the sole bid and its managers.
Yesterday, Nikos Christodoulides stated that his government is here to ensure no shadow falls upon the Republic of Cyprus. When the European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigation concludes, he may need to prove this in practice. We shall see…
