Nikos Androulakis, president of opposition party PASOK-KINAL and victim of an attempted surveillance of his phone with the Predator software, speaks to the press outside the single-member misdemeanor court in Athens, on October 22, 2025. [Dimitris Sarelas/Intime News]
The Supreme Court prosecutor’s ruling that there are no grounds to reopen the alleged wiretapping case drew sharp and intense criticism. The prosecutor concluded that the case file – in which four defendants were found guilty at first instance and sentenced – contained no new evidence not already examined by the competent prosecutor and there was, therefore, no basis for retrieving the file from the archive.
What the critics of this ruling essentially allege is nothing less than that the government interfered with the prosecutor, who, in turn, did its bidding in order to prevent any further investigation into the matter.
Yet those making this claim cannot tell us who in the government intervened, when they did so or by what means. Why, then, do they say it – so badly, without proof or scrutiny? Because they assume it to be true. And why do they assume it? Because they believe the prosecutor’s ruling was wrong. But why do they consider it wrong? On what basis do they reach that conclusion?
What the prosecutor actually said was this: There is no new evidence warranting a fresh examination of the case file.
His ruling raises two distinct questions. First, is it correct – in the absence of new evidence – not to reopen an archived case file? And second, in ruling this way, is the prosecutor on solid legal ground, or is he mistaken?
The answer to both is clear: He is on solid legal ground. When a criminal case file is archived, it can only be reopened and subjected to new investigative steps if new evidence comes to light.
There is simply no procedural mechanism for reviewing the same evidence all over again. On this point, the prosecutor’s ruling is correct.
But was there, perhaps, new evidence? I do not know the case file in sufficient depth to say what evidence it contained when the decision to archive it was made, or what the file transmitted following the judgment of the Single-Member Misdemeanor Court included. Consequently, I have little to add on this point other than to accept the substantive judgment of the prosecutor, who alone had full knowledge of all the relevant material.
From the outraged statements I have been reading, however, it appears that what the prosecutor’s detractors consider new evidence is an excerpt from an interview given by Tal Dilian – one of the four defendants convicted at first instance – in which he claimed that neither he nor his company had conducted any surveillance, and that his dealings had been exclusively with state agencies.
One observation on this point: the defendant in question had every opportunity to present these claims during the preliminary investigation or pretrial proceedings, as well as during the trial itself, and to submit supporting evidence in their defense. Evidently, he did not. Had he done so, the fact would have extensively occupied the media and political parties in a case of such high public interest.
Instead, following his first-instance conviction – and without having said a word to the judicial authorities – he made these statements in a media interview. And this, according to the opposition, should be treated as new evidence justifying a fresh look at the case.
Clearly, the prosecutor was right on this point as well. If someone who is able to present crucial exculpatory evidence during their trial fails to do so, but later makes claims in an interview, does that justify reopening the case? Obviously not.
I will close with this: In my judgment, and to the extent I am familiar with the facts, the prosecutor ruled correctly. That said, one could reasonably take a different view and consider his ruling to be mistaken. Such differences of opinion are commonplace in the legal world – there is nothing extraordinary or unusual about it – provided the argument is legal in nature rather than political.
The prosecutor did not err because he failed to serve PASOK’s agenda or the opposition’s political objectives. He did not err because he declined to uncover whatever truth certain parties have already decided upon in advance. He did not err because he chose not to investigate allegations of spying when he determined there was nothing new to examine. He did not err because he refused to do the opposition’s bidding.
Yet that is precisely what some people are claiming. That is why they do not engage in legitimate legal criticism of the prosecutor’s decision, which they are entirely entitled to do. Instead, they engage in political attacks to which they are not entitled. Worse still, they cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial decision itself, implying that it was the product of pressure and political bargaining. And that is truly disgraceful, toxic and corrosive to the rule of law – the very principle they claim to defend.
Makis Voridis is a lawmaker with ruling New Democracy, representing the Eastern Attica constituency.