Μake us preferred on Google The case opened by the Council of State’s (ΣτΕ) latest rulings is already moving into the next phase for Greece’s non state universities. One day after the rulings were published, Panagiotis Lazaratos, professor of Administrative Law at Athens Law School, asked the National Authority for Higher Education (HAHE) for the files of the seven university legal entities licensed last July, raising the question of whether their programs can be certified under the same regulatory framework that was at the center of the court’s ruling.
At the same time, key excerpts from the reasoning behind decisions 1167-1170/2026, concerning the Keele and York cases, which Lazaratos, the appellant in those cases, shared exclusively with To Vima, shed more detailed light on the court’s ruling, from the specific building code violations to the “vagueness” and “self referential” nature the court found in the certification framework.
The Constitutionality Question Isn’t Reopened
As To Vima reported on Thursday, August 13, the new Council of State rulings do not overturn the plenary session’s earlier ruling on the institution itself. The court reaffirms that the legal framework for establishing, licensing, and operating these university entities is compatible with the Constitution, EU law, and Greece’s international commitments.
It also rejects the argument that each study program requires a separate recognition act from the parent university, ruling instead that recognition is covered by the educational agreement between the foreign institution and its Greek branch.
The weight of the rulings, then, falls on how the institutional framework was actually applied.
What EOPPEP Found
In Keele’s case, EOPPEP had found “serious building code violations.” These included undeclared floors, facilities unsuitable for teaching and recreation, no staircase access for people with disabilities, unfinished construction, and building materials stored inside classrooms.
At York, the violations concerned structural safety, fire protection, accessibility for people with disabilities, and natural lighting and ventilation.
The legally decisive point, however, wasn’t that the Council of State itself found the buildings unsuitable. After EOPPEP’s findings and the compliance deadline, the required formal confirmation that the legal building requirements had been met never followed. This omission is described as a “substantial defect” in the licensing process.
When The Criteria Were Found Too Vague
The broader institutional significance of the rulings lies in the certification of the study programs. The Council of State reviewed, as a secondary matter, ΕΘΑΑΕ decision 48136/17.12.2024, which was adopted to spell out the criteria, indicators, and requirements for certification.
According to the court’s reasoning, the framework describes general procedures and policies in several places without specifying the requirements the administration should use to assess a program’s quality, making even judicial review difficult.
The court focuses specifically on the “suitability” of a program’s structure and organization. ΕΘΑΑΕ requires the university entity to follow procedures that demonstrate this suitability, without specifying what “suitability” actually means or what conditions are needed to establish it. The court found this wording too vague.
The court’s overall assessment is even harsher. The regulatory act is described as marked by “generality” and, in some cases, “self reference.” The failure to set specific quantitative and qualitative criteria is found to be a substantial flaw, and the court concludes that the act “falls outside the scope of its legislative authorization.” The challenged certifications are therefore annulled for lacking a valid regulatory basis.
The relationship with earlier case law is worth noting. In ruling 1920/2025, the plenary session had cited the same decision 48136/2024, and specifically Criterion 6, on the quality of teaching staff, as part of the safeguards built into the new system. The newer rulings examine a different question: not whether the legislature could delegate the specification of criteria to ΕΘΑΑΕ, but whether the authority actually exercised that power adequately when certifying specific programs. On that question, the Third Section’s answer is no.
The Next Front: The Seven New University Entities
On August 14, Lazaratos submitted a request to ΕΘΑΑΕ for the files of the seven university entities licensed on July 29. These are Georgetown University Greece, Iowa State University/American Farm School, Roger Williams University/Deree, European University Cyprus, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord/IdEF, University of Essex/Aegean College, and University of Derby/Mediterranean College.
The aim of the request is to determine whether the 11 criteria set out in decision 48136/2024 will serve as the regulatory basis for certifying the programs of these seven entities. That decision, published in the Government Gazette (FEK 6957/B/18.12.2024), sets the standard for the criteria, indicators, and requirements used to certify undergraduate programs at university entities, covering areas from strategic planning and quality policy to program design, teaching, student assessment, and teaching staff.
“A new regulatory framework needs to be built at ΕΘΑΑΕ,” Lazaratos told To Vima, arguing that the authority cannot move forward with new certifications based on decision 48136/2024 as it stands.
The key question now sits with ΕΘΑΑΕ: can decision 48136/2024, as it is, serve as the basis for the new certifications? If not, what new or revised set of specific criteria will be used to evaluate the programs of the seven new university entities set to begin operating next academic year?
