REPORTS
Issues in tendering and contracts concerning the public procurement of recycling multicenters
In August and September 2025, Kathimerini published two reports (19.8.2025 and 15.9.2025) concerning investigations by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), acting on instructions from the European Commission, into the proper use of EU funds allocated for the public procurement of recycling multicenters, equipment produced by the company TEXAN and used for the recycling of plastic, metal, and glass items. The investigation by EPPO was confirmed by the European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi herself, in response to a question by Reporters United during a press conference she gave in Piraeus on 2 October 2025. (As noted below, the first revelations about the investigations into the recycling multicenters were made by the Data Journalists team in September 2024.)
According to Kathimerini’s report of 19 August 2025, the Financial Audit Committee (EDEL), an institutional body under the Ministry of Finance responsible for verifying the proper use of EU funds, issued two findings requesting the return of 50% of the European funding (5.8 million euros) allocated for the acquisition of the recycling multicenters.
The investigation concerns the tenders and public contracts concluded for the procurement of 248 machines through an EU-funded programme (ESPA) by three public waste‑management bodies: the Attica Waste Management Association (EDSNA) for 130 machines, the Peloponnese Waste Management Agency (FODSA) for 58 machines, and the Crete Waste Management Association (ESDAK) for 60 machines.
At this point, it is necessary to highlight a series of issues arising from the omissions and failures of the Greek authorities in relation to the public contracts concluded for the procurement of the above recycling multicenters, as revealed by the press reports.
First, the investigations into the recycling multicenters were not initiated by the national authorities, but by EPPO, acting on instructions from the European Commission. According to Data Journalists and Kathimerini, the Commission intervened because there were complaints about a ‘tailor‑made’ tender and a series of problems in the implementation of the contracts. This led to the first EDEL report, revealed by Data Journalists on 5 September 2024
Second, according to EDEL’s second report on the case, parts of which became public in August 2025, the private operator responsible for running the machines is not supervised by any competent public authority;based on the documents submitted to the audit team and the clarifications provided by EDSNA, “there appears to be no form of oversight by EDSNA over TEXAN regarding the services assigned under the cooperation agreement.”
Third, beyond the lack of supervision and control over TEXAN, EDEL also notes (per Kathimerini) that EDSNA had not published the municipality‑by‑municipality data for 2024 (this was done only on 19 June 2025). It also states that there is no information from EDSNA regarding the fate of the waste after collection, apart from the reference to their placement in a TEXAN storage facility for the year 2023” and that EDSNA has not yet installed all the multicenters.
Fourth, according to Kathimerini’s report of 15 September 2025, a subsequent management audit by certified auditors, in cooperation with the Attica Region, found that no market research was conducted prior to signing the contract to identify the most advantageous offer; the technical specifications were “tailor‑made” and favoured a single company (the one ultimately selected), and that the two companies that formally participated in the tender were effectively one, since TEXAN is the exclusive representative in Greece of ENVIPCO, the second company that took part.
Regarding the link between TEXAN and ENVIPCO, the auditors further noted that the offers submitted by ENVIPCO HELLAS and TEXAN ABEE during the so‑called market research cannot be regarded as real research, since both companies share a common economic interest; a fact that could have been identified from the outset through a simple internet search. Moreover, the contracting authority chose to send invitations exclusively to these two companies.
Fifth, the auditors concluded that there is reasonable certainty of the existence of specifications that restricted competition and favoured TEXAN, since only this company appears capable of meeting all the technical requirements.
These findings led Kathimerini to describe the process as a “tender without genuine competition.” It is also noteworthy that the above findings were forwarded to the Financial Prosecutor for criminal assessment.
Article 18(1) of Law 4412/2016 (Government Gazette A’147/08.08.2016) sets out a series of principles governing the award of public contracts, including the promotion of competition and the prohibition of discrimination among participating companies. Specifically, the article states that contracting authorities must treat economic operators equally and without discrimination, act transparently, and respect proportionality; that procurement procedures must not be designed with the aim of artificially restricting competition; and that competition is considered artificially restricted when procedures are designed to unjustifiably favour or disadvantage certain economic operators.
Based on the findings of the official investigations published regarding the procurement of TEXAN’s recycling multicenters, a clear issue of competition arises, even though Article 18(1) of Law 4412/2016 establishes competition as a fundamental principle in the award of public contracts.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate