The law follows several occasions in the last few years in which the Greek press published reports alleging that the award of public construction contracts had resulted from the influence of media owners who were also shareholders – or their relatives were – in the companies that won the contracts. With the massive increase of public building required for the 2004 Olympic Games, such cases naturally generated considerable publicity. The new law refers to the broad public sector, including: contracts with the state and municipalities; private companies whose board is selected by the state or which receive substantial public funding; and companies founded by the state. The law applies to all public contracts worth more than €250,000 (US $302,000), many of which are for public works and construction projects. Under the new law for companies to participate in a bid above the threshold, all board members, directors and shareholders with more than a 5 per cent participation; the shareholders of the shareholding companies; and their relatives all have to sign a declaration that they are neither an owner nor shareholder in a media company. Even a small firm with three shareholders, a board of five members and two directors, all from small families, might have to send a list of 150 names, while figures of up to 500 names are not unusual. However, in the event that one of the persons listed is indeed connected with a media company, he or she merely has to prove financial independence from the relative participating in the company’s bid. Since a mass media organisation and a construction company, even if owned by the same group of individuals, may easily be financially independent of one another, this provision makes it easy to avoid application of the law, in spite of its apparent severity. The law can also be by-passed by off-shore companies, which cannot be obliged to publish the names of their shareholders. Initial hopes that the new law would prevent misuse of influence receded in 2003, just months after it was implemented.
Although such cases were broadly discussed in the media, only one reached the courts, and not as a criminal procedure. The case in question, which concerned annulling the award of a construction project to a company owned by the sons of a media owner, was heard in the supreme administrative court. The requirements that the law introduced were clearly impractical and bureaucratic, while providing ample scope for evasion. The New Democracy government, elected in March 2004, proposed to amend the law later in the year, but any amendment will come long after the Olympics and Greece’s largest publicly funded construction boom in recent years.
A specialised police agency In 2003 the Greek government responded to calls for a specialised agency to tackle corrupt public employees. The need for such an office had been obvious for years, judging from the number of public complaints about corruption and the lack of prosecutions. Instead of building a new agency, an existing institution, the Directorate of Internal Affairs of the Greek police had its competence broadened. This move followed the recommendations of the GRECO inspection team, which visited the directorate in 2001, evaluated positively its anti-corruption work in the police force and proposed expanding its activities to other areas of public administration.1 Choosing an already well-functioning, experienced and broadly independent institution has already proved effective. During its first year, in 2003, 396 complaints against police officers and 65 complaints against public officers – all for corruption – were filed. Twelve cases against public officers were prosecuted and will be brought to trial. Bribery already constitutes the second largest group of violations (after violation of duty) investigated by the Directorate. The Directorate of Internal Affairs was established in 1999. It has functional independence, reports directly to the chief
Country reports GREECE
GC2005 02 chap06 155
155
13/1/05 4:34:12 pm