Nearly four years after Greece’s wiretapping scandal engulfed the country’s intelligence services and triggered one of the deepest institutional crises of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ tenure, a new legislative move concerning the National Intelligence Service (EYP) is reigniting political tensions — this time over staffing and the long-term architecture of state power.
The controversy centers on a draft law put under public consultation in recent days that includes a little-noticed provision allowing public sector employees seconded to EYP to become permanent staff members of the agency.
For critics, however, the measure goes beyond administrative reform. They argue it reflects an attempt by the government to consolidate a lasting administrative footprint inside one of Greece’s most sensitive institutions — potentially extending influence beyond the lifespan of the current administration.
The issue carries particular political weight because EYP reports directly to the prime minister, following a 2019 decision by Mitsotakis to place the intelligence agency under his office shortly after taking power.
The move now revives uncomfortable memories of the surveillance affair that erupted in 2022, when revelations that politicians, journalists and public figures had been monitored both through conventional interception methods and via the Predator spyware placed EYP at the center of an international controversy and triggered investigations by Greek authorities as well as the European Parliament.
Under the proposed changes to Greece’s intelligence framework, civil servants already serving within EYP through temporary secondments would, for the first time, gain the right to apply for permanent transfers into the service.
Applications would have to be submitted one month before the expiration of a secondment period, while employees already serving in the agency would receive a transitional 60-day window to request permanent integration.
The transfers could take place either through existing vacant positions or through the creation of personal posts tailored specifically for those employees.
The legislation explicitly states that the transfers would proceed “notwithstanding any general or special legal provision,” effectively creating an exception to the broader public-sector mobility system.
That wording has become a focal point of criticism.
Opponents argue the measure is highly targeted because it does not establish a general mechanism applicable across the Greek civil service but applies exclusively to personnel already seconded to EYP.
The transitional clause has further fueled accusations that the legislation is less about future staffing needs and more about permanently absorbing personnel already embedded within the agency.
Sources familiar with internal discussions inside the service say the changes are being interpreted as part of a broader effort to establish a stable civilian administrative core within EYP.
Political critics have pushed the argument further, accusing the government of attempting to shape what they call the “next day” inside the state apparatus by building durable administrative structures capable of maintaining influence even after a future electoral turnover.
In Greece, this debate touches a particularly sensitive nerve. The concept of control over the “levers of the state” has long carried political significance, especially in periods of government transition.
The government has not publicly framed the reform in those terms, presenting it instead as an administrative adjustment concerning personnel management inside the intelligence service.
But the proposal also raises broader institutional questions extending beyond EYP itself.
Traditionally, secondments in the Greek public sector have been temporary assignments allowing employees to cover operational needs while remaining tied to their original institution. Permanent transfers, by contrast, follow structured mobility procedures and staffing plans.
The new arrangement effectively creates an intermediate route: temporary assignments could evolve into permanent appointments.
Administrative experts note that if such a mechanism becomes established within EYP, pressure may eventually emerge for similar arrangements across other state bodies, independent authorities and specialized agencies where employees often serve for years under secondment arrangements.
Another point of contention concerns the use of so-called “personal posts” — positions created for specific individuals rather than as part of ordinary organizational planning.
Critics argue that extensive reliance on such mechanisms risks shifting staffing policy away from institutional needs and toward personnel already in place.
The broader concern raised by opponents is that Greece may be moving toward a model in which temporary staffing tools become vehicles for constructing permanent administrative structures within strategically important institutions.
The wiretapping affair has already significantly reshaped Mitsotakis’ image abroad. Once presented as a pro-European liberal reformer, the Greek prime minister has faced sustained scrutiny following the surveillance scandal and persistent criticism from opposition parties and rights groups over efforts by the government to contain the political fallout through interventions affecting parliamentary and judicial processes. The latest EYP reform risks reopening not only questions about intelligence oversight, but also broader concerns over who exercises influence within the institutions of the Greek state — and how enduring that influence may prove to be.
