Dear friends, good day to you all!
About two years ago, in July 2024, the wiretapping case was closed based on the findings of Supreme Court Deputy Prosecutor Achilleas Zisis. The main conclusion at the time was clear: there was no reason for further investigation.
Yesterday, despite the findings of the trial before the Athens Single-Judge Misdemeanor Court—which resulted in heavy sentences and the referral of the case back for further investigation, including for possible espionage— Supreme Court Prosecutor Konstantinos Tzavellas ruled that the conditions for retrieving the case file from the archives are not met.
The reasoning is clear: there is no “new substantial evidence” to justify a reexamination of the case.
This is precisely where the crux of the matterlies . Onthe one hand, the Supreme Court finds that there is a lack of new evidence. On the other hand, the Single-Judge Misdemeanor Court assesses that there are indications requiring further investigation.
These are two different judicial interpretations of the same evidence—and this, in itself, carries institutional weight. The question that arises is simple: can a case of this magnitude be closed without further investigative action?
According to what has been publicly stated by the lawyer for the surveillance victims, Zak Kessé, the trial court requested an investigation into, among other things:
- possible espionage,
- involvement of additional individuals,
- continued trafficking of surveillance software after 2022.
According to the same allegations, there was no further investigative activity nor examination of key witnesses. If this is true, the issue ceases to be merely legal. It becomes a matter of quality: it concerns the thoroughness of the investigation.
Similarly, regarding the espionage aspect, the prosecutor’s conclusion is clear: the acquisition of state secrets was not proven . However, the opposing view points out that what matters is not only what was proven, but also what was investigated.
The same applies to the most sensitive question: were state agencies involved in the use of surveillance software or not? The absence of a clear answer leaves a gap that is difficult to fill in the public discourse. And this void tends to turn intoan “institutional shadow.”
In this environment, the judiciary faces dual pressure. On the one hand, it is called upon to ensure legal certainty and prevent an endless cycle of investigations. On the other hand, it must demonstrate that the investigation was thorough and substantive.
The political confrontation that has already erupted exacerbates the problem. The same decision is interpreted either as a sign of institutional stability or as an act of cover-up. Thus, the judiciary presents a dual image of legitimacy—something that undermines its credibility in the long run.
The crux of the matter is that the case seems to have shifted: from a criminal investigation to a crisis of confidence. And this is perhaps the most serious aspect of it.
The possibility of a new investigative committee could bring the issue back into the spotlight and yield additional evidence. Until then, however, the image that has been formed is difficult to reverse.
Because, ultimately, in such cases, what matters is not only what is proven—but also whether the public is convinced that everything necessary was done to prove it.