The Athens Bar Association is examining whether to take legal action at the European Court of Human Rights after Supreme Court Prosecutor Konstantinos Tzavellas declined to reopen the archived file on Greece’s wiretapping scandal.
At a press conference convened by the Athens Bar, constitutional law professor emeritus Nikos Alivizatos said recent Strasbourg case law may offer grounds for challenging the prosecutor’s decision under European standards.
He referred to the case of former prosecutor Georgia Tsatani, which led the European Court of Human Rights to condemn Greece, as well as the recent Kanev v. Bulgaria judgment, which concerned the refusal of Bulgaria’s intelligence service to inform a citizen whether he had been under surveillance.
Alivizatos Points to European Court Grounds in Greece’s Wiretapping Case
Alivizatos noted that in Greece, the National Intelligence Service, EYP, confirmed to PASOK leader Nikos Androulakis that it had monitored him, but did not disclose the reason. In the Bulgarian case, he said, the authorities did not even provide that level of acknowledgment.
“These two rulings, Tsatani and Kanev, lead me to believe that there may be a basis for reviewing Mr. Tzavellas’s act under European criteria,” Alivizatos said.
He added that the alleged conflict of duties alone could have serious implications for the entire case, while stressing that any move toward Strasbourg would require careful legal study.
Athens Bar president Andreas Koutsolampros later confirmed that the Association is exploring that possibility.
Existing European Court’s cases over independent authorities
Alivizatos also briefed reporters on the status of the Athens Bar’s pending application before the European Court of Human Rights. The case followed the Council of State’s rejection of the Association’s request to annul decisions replacing members of the boards of the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy, HACSP, known in Greece as ADAE, and the National Council for Radio and Television, ESR.
The Athens Bar challenged the appointments on the grounds that the Conference of Parliament Presidents approved them with 16 votes, rather than the minimum 17 votes required under Article 101 of the Greek Constitution. The Council of State rejected the applications as inadmissible in plenary rulings 1639 and 1640 of 2024.
Alivizatos described the court’s reasoning as a “bombshell,” saying the Council of State based its rejection on the view that the Athens Bar lacked legal standing. He argued that this position conflicted with Article 90 of the Greek Lawyers’ Code, which expressly allows bar associations to file annulment applications before any court in pursuit of their statutory objectives.
According to Alivizatos, the Athens Bar alleges a violation of its right of access to a court under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as a violation of the confidentiality of communications and private life of its members, namely lawyers, under Article 8.
He said the parties have completed the exchange of written observations and that the court is expected to issue a ruling within the current year.
Androulakis wiretapping case granted major priority status by European court
Alivizatos also referred to the separate application filed by PASOK (Panhellenic Socialist Movement) president Nikos Androulakis before the European Court of Human Rights.
Androulakis has challenged the Greek government’s failure to implement a unanimous plenary ruling by the Council of State, decision 465 of 2024, which ordered the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy, HACSP, known in Greece as ADAE, to inform him why the National Intelligence Service, NIS, known in Greece as EYP, had placed his phone under surveillance between September and November 2021.
Alivizatos said Androulakis alleges a breach of the confidentiality of his communications under Article 8 of the Convention, as well as the state’s non-compliance with a final judicial decision under Article 6 paragraph 1.
He added that the European Court of Human Rights has classified the case as one of major priority and that it remains at the written observations stage.
Athens Bar rejects closure of espionage inquiry
Koutsolampros reiterated the Athens Bar’s opposition to the archiving of the wiretapping case, particularly regarding the possible offense of espionage.
He said all three proposals submitted to the Bar’s Administrative Council opposed closing the case, despite the contrary judicial assessment of the Athens Single-Member Misdemeanor Court. According to Koutsolampros, all members of the council agreed that authorities must further investigate the case.
He added that the Athens Bar intends to raise the issue in European forums and support victims of phone surveillance, as well as their lawyers, in any legal action aimed at establishing the truth before Greek and European courts.
Call for Tzavellas to step aside
Athens Bar general secretary Kostas Karetsos said Tzavellas should have recused himself from the wiretapping case because, during the period under review, he held the position of deputy supervisor of EYP (Greece’s National Intelligence Service) and was also a party before the parliamentary inquiry committee.
Karetsos said the Single-Member Misdemeanor Court, based on newly revealed evidence, found that illegal spyware had been used against state officials. The court ordered the case file to go to an investigating judge for examination of the offense of espionage concerning those convicted and their accomplices.
By contrast, he said, the Supreme Court Prosecutor decided not to retrieve the case from the archive, finding that the crime of espionage had not been substantiated. Karetsos argued that he reached that conclusion without any substantive investigation, witness testimony or examination of critical evidence.
On that basis, he said, the Athens Bar’s board concluded that the prosecutor’s act amounted to an institutional deviation and called for his resignation.
Vice President defends strong language on Greece’s wiretapping case
Athens Bar vice president Ms. Tsangkli defended both the demand for the resignation of the Supreme Court Prosecutor and the use of the phrase “institutional deviation,” which the board majority used to describe Tzavellas’s handling of the investigation.
She said the majority did not choose its strict wording or the measures it adopted, including the call for the prosecutor to resign, lightly or hastily. Instead, she said, the majority considered them a proportionate response to what it views as the scale of the institutional breach and misconduct shown by the prosecutorial authority in this case.
According to Tsangkli, the prosecutorial authority not only failed to further investigate the case as required, but should also have abstained because, in the majority’s view, there was an evident ground for self-recusal that remained undisclosed.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
