Hypocrisy to the nth degree
The Supreme Court prosecutor’s recent announcement about the findings of an investigation into the wiretapping affair by a deputy prosecutor of the court, Achilles Zisis, disappointed all of us, ordinary citizens and legal experts alike, who want to believe in the integrity of the Greek justice system.
To begin with, there was the tone of the announcement: It was not, as it ought to have been, a dry legal document, but a blatant public relations stunt. Even if it had been deemed that the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office ought to issue a special kind of announcement in a case such as this (a procedure that is not officially foreseen), madame prosecutor ought to have displayed the impartiality her office dictates.
Take two examples: Instead of using the stock phrase that insufficient evidence was found to support criminal action being taken against the state officials involved (at the National Intelligence Service and other services), Georgia Adeilini used the word “indisputable” to claim that there was absolutely no connection between the wiretaps using the illegal Predator spyware and those that were ordered by the National Intelligence Service (EYP). As if it could possibly be a coincidence that more than 50 individuals were being surveilled by both.
The same goes for the way she chose to tell the public that the former prosecutor dealing with EYP requests for tapping, Angeliki Vlachou, had “stringently” followed the proper procedures in authorizing the lifting of privacy for dozens of individuals. Such emphatic terms undoubtedly suggest bias.
If the government wants to refute claims that it is, directly or indirectly, influencing the justice system, it can inform the victims of the wiretaps why they were placed under surveillance and, possibly, apologize to those whose surveillance was a ‘mistake’
The essence of the announcement was also problematic and can only be understood in combination with EYP’s refusal to tell PASOK chief Nikos Androulakis why he had been placed under surveillance – and this despite being ordered by the Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, to do just that. When among the people being surveilled – and for two years, too – we see the name of a top judicial official (who actually sits in the office beside that of Zisis) and when the prime minister himself has stated that Androulakis should never have been put under surveillance, we must ask why Adeilini appears so ready to adopt the opinion that there was absolutely nothing legally amiss with the phone taps that were ordered. All the more so when she erroneously invokes a decision of the European Court of Justice on the same matter.
Responding to a pretrial question by a Bulgarian criminal court, the EU court in Luxembourg did indeed rule that authorizations to lift confidentiality do not need to be justified. It clarified, however, that this is only on the condition that there has been a “reasoned request submitted by the appropriate authorities” (to which the interested party may also be privy) and from which “the reasons for granting that authorization can be reliably ascertained” (C-349/21).
To sum up, if the government wants to refute claims that it is, directly or indirectly, influencing the justice system, it can do so in the simplest following way: It can inform the victims of the wiretaps why they were placed under surveillance and, possibly, apologize to those whose surveillance was a “mistake.” Otherwise, it will not be able to shake off the shadow of collusion.
Nikos Alivizatos is a professor emeritus of constitutional law at Athens University.
