State control in Greek: millions for private owners and reports without problems

Court of Auditors of Greece revealed that most “internal” audits in the public sector were transferred to private contractors through direct appointments.

Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο (Court of Auditors of Greece) published a report that looks not just like an “alarm signal”, but like a neatly formatted description of the old disease of the Greek state: there is control, there are reports, money is spent, but transparency has somehow not been introduced.

Briefly about the main thing

• 90% government agencies that hired external contractors for internal audits did so through direct assignment.
• From 8.9 million eurosspent on external partners, 7.6 million euros distributed without a full competitive procedure.
• 65.5% the number and value of contracts are concentrated in eight largest contractors.
• Only 19% government agencies have a truly functional internal control system.
• IN 32% There is not a single employee in the established internal audit units.

The report concerns Internal control systems (ΣΕΕ) in public sector structures. In law N.4795/2021 government organizations are required to create internal audit units. Everything is beautiful on paper: control, reporting, transparency, proper management. In practice, as the report shows, much of this system has become just another direct appointment market for a narrow circle of private contractors.

90% through direct appointments

According to Accounts Chamberthe vast majority of structures that transferred work to external partners did so through direct assignment. Such cases – 90%. Approximately 16% organizations were unable to convincingly justify why they chose this particular method.

From the point of view of money, the picture is even more revealing: from 8.9 million eurosspent by the state on external partners to conduct internal audits, 85%that is, about 7.6 million euroswere distributed through direct assignment.

A separate detail that should make a normal taxpayer’s eye twitch slightly: 65.5% number and value of contracts received only eight largest contractorswho worked all over the country. That is, the control seems to be internal, the money is public, the contractors are private, and the circle of recipients is suspiciously compact. Greek administrative magic shows the trick again: transparency turns into a feeding trough.

There are improvements, but it’s too early to rejoice

Formally, the report also contains good news. The share of completely inactive structures that have not even created internal audit units on paper has decreased. Until 2024 there were such 53.8%in 2025 – already 41%.

The number of organizations that prepare internal control reports and send them to the competent authorities has also increased: Accounts Chamber, Γενική Γραμματεία Δημοσίων Εσόδων (General Secretariat of State Revenue) And Εθνική Αρχή Διαφάνειας (National Transparency Office). In 2024, reports were compiled only 20% structures, now – about 50%.

But that’s where the good news ends. Behind the external improvement lies the old Greek classic: formal conformity, weak content and many beautiful documents that are supposed to depict management.

Only 19% have real control

According to Accounts Chamberonly 19% government agencies have a functionally complete internal control system. A system is considered complete if the procedures, risks and mechanisms for their prevention are sufficiently well described, and not less than 50%and there is also a fully staffed internal audit department or a full transfer of this function to an external partner.

Remaining 81% do not meet these criteria. The situation is better in public hospitals, second-tier regions and universities, but the report’s overall conclusion remains grim: the situation poses serious functional and budgetary risks for government agencies.

Nobody knows what exactly they are checking

In order for the control system to work at all, the organization must first describe its own procedures: who approves expenses, how procurement works, who is responsible for what, where are the risks and where are the protective mechanisms. Without this, control turns into a ritual: the inspector pretends that he is checking, and the organization pretends that it has a system.

According to the report, 68% structures described less than half of their procedures. Complete recording of processes was done only 9.4%. It is especially alarming that the worst indicators are shown by structures central administration. That is, where the state should set a standard, it again sets an example of how not to.

Long live copy/paste

The saddest and at the same time very Greek point of the report: 43% structures for which some procedures are nevertheless described cannot say whether they are used in practice. The reason is that many simply copied ready-made texts from common templates or documents from other organizations.

In other words, instead of real internal control, the state often received copy/paste administration. There are texts. There is no life in them. But the box is ticked, the report is there, we can go our separate ways. Bureaucracy again defeated reality with a clean bill.

Phantom units

The law requires each structure to create an internal audit unit. 55% organizations have done this, at least on paper. But in 32% These departments do not have a single employee. There is an office in the structure, but there are no people. Controlling the name of an empty chair.

In legal entities of public law the situation is even worse: 50% such units are empty. In municipalities – 43%. Accounts Chamber directly speaks of formal compliance without real application. In English it’s called tick the box: They checked the box and pretended that the government was working.

Even where there are employees, they don’t stay long. In 2025, the internal control departments left 70 out of 260 workers, almost every fourth. Most of the transfers were made by decisions of the administration without sufficient justification. And here a simple question arises: why are management so willing to remove internal auditors?

They check everything except money

Even operational departments often bypass the most important things: expenses, procurement and management of public resources. But if the internal auditor does not check where the money is going, then what exactly is he checking? Folder color? Temperature in the corridor?

Conclusion Accounts Chamber What is clear is that a significant portion of internal audit functions, whether they use external partners or not, do not fulfill the responsibilities associated with the execution of budgets and do not verify the reliability of financial and non-financial reporting.

Private auditors who see no problems

A separate issue is the quality of work of external partners. When 90% structures turn to private contractors through direct appointments, and 7.6 million euros distributed without full competition, suspicions arise on their own, without the help of the opposition, journalists and evil tongues.

But the most telling thing is different. From 152 reportscompiled by external audit partners, there was not a single negative conclusion about the overall sufficiency of internal control systems. Not a single one. Even where procedures have not been described or financially responsible persons have not been appointed.

That is, private auditors came, looked at the state chaos and did not find anything bad enough to say “no, this does not work.” Very convenient. Especially if you remember who pays for the report and who can give the contract again next time.

Who checks the inspectors?

The final touch looks almost mocking. In three-quarters of government agencies, the acceptance of reports from external partners is entrusted to bodies that are located outside of their own internal audit departments.

Moreover, in such bodies more than 90% cases, there is not a single employee with internal auditor certification. The Accounts Chamber asks a logical question: are such structures even capable of assessing the work of external contractors and correctly accepting their reports?

And here the whole system closes in a perfect bureaucratic circle: private traders are hired directly, reports are accepted by people without the necessary qualifications, almost no one finds problemsand the state receives a paper that can be placed in the “transparency” folder. There is paper. There is almost no control.

The main conclusion is simple: internal control in the Greek state too often looks like an outsourcing, designed for internal peace. Instead of a real system, there are direct assignments, empty departments, copied procedures and reports without unpleasant conclusions. If this is the fight for transparency, then corruption can easily finish its coffee.

Source link