One hundred and twenty million ECU — and the auditor who wrote that the inmates were fewer because of mortality
Before the CPT there was the EEC. By Council Regulation (EEC) 815/84 of 26 March 1984 the Council approved "exceptional financial support in favour of Greece in the social field": 120 million ECU over five years (Article 4), for vocational training centres in the large urban areas — Athens and Thessaloniki, in the recitals — and for the rehabilitation of people with mental illness and intellectual disability, that is, for the reform of the asylums; the Court of Auditors records that the sum was split equally between the two strands. The sum circulates as "the money for Leros". It was not: Leros was one of the institutions under the second strand, and that is what makes its balance sheet worth reading.
What the auditor found. The European Court of Auditors, in Special Report 5/90 (Official Journal C 331, 31 December 1990), recorded that by 31 December 1988 — the original closing date — 28 million ECU, 23% of the grant, had been paid. On Leros it writes that "the maximum number of patients reached 2 700", that "at the end of 1989 there were still 1 127 mentally ill persons on Leros", and that of the roughly 900 staff "half … are involved in supervisory or maintenance work" — "almost exclusively persons who have no professional qualifications and have been recruited on the spot". And the paragraph for which the report is cited here, 5.14: "From the general point of view of the treatment of patients, the situation has remained unchanged. The reduction in the number of patients interned which has taken place over the last few years is a result of mortality, and not of the introduction of new treatment methods." The conclusion, paragraph 6.5: "The case of the hospital at Leros brings all the risks and difficulties into focus" — inadequate preparation, confused execution, ineffective results.
The Commission's reply, in the same issue. The European Commission did not dispute the description: "The Court's description of the situation on Leros is correct." It added that in 1989 it had "decided to postpone indefinitely the approval of new psychiatric projects", laying down as a condition, among others, "a demonstrable improvement in the condition of patients on Leros", and that "responsibility for living conditions and medical treatment of all patients on Leros remains with the Greek Government". On Leros: "Although failure was encountered in the case of Leros, this was not true of the whole programme."
What happened next, according to the Commission itself. Regulation 4130/88 extended the period of support to 1991 and the deadline for the Commission's final report to 1995, "without affecting the overall amount of financial assistance"; completion, on 30 June 1995, came by Commission decisions. The Commission's final report, COM(95) 668 of 15 December 1995, records 115.3 million ECU committed and 90.6% absorbed, the cancellation of 76 projects that had not started by December 1990, a special two-year action for Leros from December 1990 with the exit of 110 patients to 11 hostels, and by June 1995: about 130 former patients in 14 hostels on the mainland, about 110 in 18 hostels and flats on the island, six cooperatives employing about 90 people, 148 severely disabled children in the former PIKPA ward — and 570 patients who remained inside. The same report writes that the large reduction of the previous decade was due "to a large extent" to the 1982 embargo on long-term admissions "combined with natural morbidity", half the patients being over 60. The Commission, citing the successive reports of its independent team of experts, wrote that "regression to the previous situation in Leros is inconceivable" — and that "the necessary adaptations to the administrative/legal context" were "imperative". Where the institution stood sixteen years later is told by the next two exhibits.
Two numbers that do not agree, and we print both. The Court of Auditors writes "a maximum of 2,700" patients; the Commission's report writes that by the mid-1970s the number "had reached 1,900". Not necessarily a contradiction — they may refer to different years — but neither document cites its source, which is why the peak figure stays in Part X.
[2] Regulation (EEC) 815/84, Article 4 · [79] Regulation (EEC) 4130/88 · [80] European Court of Auditors, Special Report 5/90, §§1.2, 2.3, 5.8–5.9, 5.14, 6.5, and the Commission's reply · [81] European Commission, COM(95) 668, pp. 5, 20, 23, 32–34