\n<\/p>\n
In almost all opinion polls and in a recent Eurostat survey (fall 2025) we observe something very worrying: Greeks trust the justice system less than other Europeans. The reasons are many and in some cases unfair. The causes of distrust are often not due to system itself, but to the inability of many people to understand the way in which it operates.<\/p>\n
However, especially for the Greek justice system, there are other causes that should concern us. The most important has to do with a domestic institutional shortfall: the Greek Constitution and constitutional practice do not fully ensure the independence of the justice system. The institutional framework does not minimize the incentives and opportunities to exercise undue political influence. This problem has many aspects, but it can be put simply: How easy is it for a judge \u2013 in any country, even in liberal democracies \u2013 to issue a decision that will displease the government? The judiciary is truly independent when we see that it does not hesitate, when necessary, to clash with the executive branch to defend the Constitution, the rule of law, rights and individual freedoms. The Greek judiciary should also be judged mainly by this criterion.<\/p>\n
If there is a lack of trust today, the judiciary itself bears great responsibility. Because in a series of decisions which in many cases had political implications, it has caused reasonable concern. Let us look at the recent decision of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court not to reexamine the wiretapping scandal, arguing that no new evidence has emerged that would justify reopening the case. The Single-Member Misdemeanor Court of Athens where the wiretapping case was tried, had sent the case file back to the prosecutors for further investigation into possible responsibilities of other people, as well as for other possible offenses, such as espionage and illegal trafficking of surveillance software.<\/p>\n
The problem is not that the case was archived, nor necessarily the refusal to investigate a case of such great political and institutional magnitude. The decision of the Supreme Court prosecutor, however, does not seem to meet the increased burden of justification required by the nature of this case. Given that respect for the institution of justice presupposes public scrutiny, the problem facing the domestic justice system is that the inability to persuade the public is beginning to take on institutional dimensions, as we observe in this case a rupture with the Prosecutor\u2019s Office common practice: In cases of doubt, the usual practice tends to be to investigate further, not to close the case. When the opposite occurs, the burden of responsibility for full and convincing justification increases. Bypassing investigation requires stronger justification than a decision to investigate, while weaker justification will be judged with severity.<\/p>\n
The basic question is simple: If the evidence that emerged after the Court of First Instance\u2019s decision was unknown, why is it not considered sufficient to initiate a new investigation? If it was known, it is even worse, because it becomes difficult to understand the logic behind the prosecutor\u2019s decision to file the case and confirm only now that the evidence was known.<\/p>\n
We must be very careful in these matters. Prosecutorial judgments must be respected, but this respect must not be uncritical. The institutional stakes are very high. The wiretapping case does not simply concern individual criminal responsibilities. It simultaneously touches upon the confidentiality of communications and national security \u2013 that is, two of the most sensitive legal goods in a liberal democracy. Decisions with weak justification cannot convince a well-meaning observer, especially if he is also a lawyer with some experience. They undermine the trust of citizens which cannot be demanded, but must be earned.<\/p>\n
This trust is not a given. In a state governed by the rule of law, it is tested precisely in legal cases where the most is at stake. In addition, judicial officers should not forget that the justice system, is not weakened by criticism. It is weakened when it cannot withstand this criticism.<\/p>\n
Aristides Hatzis is professor of philosophy of law and theory of institutions, and director of the Laboratory of Political & Institutional Theory and the History of Ideas at the University of Athens.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n