The case is turning into a waterloo for both the president of the Athens Single-Member Plenary Court and those who were quick to triumph over his decision in the wiretapping and especially in the further investigation of the crime of espionage, as the prosecutor of the Aryan Court, Konstantinos Tzavellas, not only sends the case to the file, but also lambastes the president of the Single Municipal Court of Appeals for the… allegedly new aggravating evidence.

In a “fire” order, the supreme prosecutor “burns” all the “grounds for examination” on his part of the crime of espionage and reminds the president of the Single-Member Criminal Court of the two findings of the deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Achilleas Zisis: “After conducting and completing a preliminary examination, which he (Achilleas Zisis) personally conducted (Achilleas Zisis), on press publications, lawsuit reports and lawsuit-charges, referring to the case of invasion of privacy and communication (the “interception case”) and the alleged illegal operation of the spy software Predator and interception, through it, of files and data from mobile phones of various persons, in order to establish the existence of a case of criminal prosecution, for offences of the Criminal Code and the Special Criminal Laws, the above-mentioned Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, with the findings of the preliminary examination, issued on 25-07-2024 and 07-01-2025, ordered on the one hand the prosecution, by the Prosecutor of the Athens Prosecutor’s Office, only against Felix Bitziou, Sara Aleksandra HAMOU, Tal Jonathan DILIAN and Ioannis LAVRANOU, for the -among the complained- criminal acts, a)interference with a personal data archiving system, jointly with third persons, repeated, committed and attempted, b) the unlawful violation of the confidentiality of telephone communication and oral conversation, jointly with third persons, repeated, committed and attempted, and (c) unlawful access to an information or data system, jointly with third parties, with intent to commit, with intent to commit and with intent to commit, and, secondly, to file the above-mentioned complaints and complaints – criminal proceedings, in accordance with Articles 43 §§ 2 and 3 and 51 §§ 2 and 3 of the CCP, as regards any other person and any other criminal acts of the accused, with the specific, explicit and clear indication that the overall evidence of the case under consideration showed that there was no involvement, with the spy software Predator or any other, similar, software of a government agency and especially the National Intelligence Service (NIS), the Anti-Terrorism (Directorate for the Prevention of Special Crimes of Violence – DAEEV) and in general, the EL.AS. (Ministry of Citizen Protection) or any state official’.

And after the chief prosecutor reminds him of the two findings, he “reproaches” him in a very stern tone, both for not taking the two findings into account and for “obstructing and delaying the administration of justice”, essentially asking for a third investigation into a matter that has been resolved, stressing: “In the face of this clear and unequivocal ruling of the finding of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Achilleas ZISIS, the Judge of the trial Single-Member Plenary Court of Athens, instead of a new factual element, which should, according to the Criminal Procedure, emerge and emerge, with clarity, from the hearing and indeed, such as to justify the withdrawal of the archived preliminary examination file from the file, he claims that – on the basis of weak indications and hints – it is necessary, in his judgement and his suggestion and order, to carry out another – third – investigation, in order to find any new essential elements(…)”.

Through his order, the Supreme Prosecutor attributes “violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure” on the part of the President of the Single-Member Plenary Court because: “According to an explicit reference by the Judge of the Athens Single Municipal Plenary Court, in the reasoning of the above-issued decision (p. 1.845 of the decision and minutes), allegedly arise from witness statements, mainly, journalists, who, citing journalistic secrecy, refused to reveal their sources, “for the sake of the unimpaired freedom of the press”, but, however, in violation of the express provisions of Article 224 of the CCP, in this case, the preliminary examination conducted by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Achilleas ZISIS, for the whole case of “interceptions”, directed against everyone responsible, investigated every possible person involved, instigator or participant in the legal action and in related acts, concluding that there are sufficient indications for the initiation of criminal prosecution and referral to the hearing for the above mentioned legal actions, only the four known individuals”.

Flimsy Arguments

Almost every paragraph of the order emphatically highlights the flimsy legal arguments of the president of the Single Judge of the Magistrate Court, on the basis of which the investigation of the crime of espionage was requested, especially in the complaint of former Minister Christos Spirtzis, as it is pointed out: “The reasoning of the issued decision of the Athens Single-Member Plenary Court, in support of its position, for the investigation of the possible commission of the crime of espionage, whether committed or attempted (Articles 42 § 1, 148 of the PC), relies on the allegation before it by Christos Spirtzis, former Minister and already a defendant in support of the charge, during his examination, at the hearing, that he kept on his mobile phone device the three (3) emails dated 08-07-2016, 08-07-2016 and 17-10-2016, the copies of which he delivered himself, at the hearing, during the above examination, and subsequently these were entered in the documents to be read, which were addressed, inter alia, to Christos SPIRTZI, it was not confirmed, within the framework of an appropriate relevant investigation, that the use of the Predator spy software was used on the telephone device in question, so that the attempt to obtain the possession or knowledge of the perpetrator of the relevant state secrets could be verified and certain, alleged to have been contained in the above device, but, simply, in order to prove his claim, Christos SPIRTZIS printed and delivered, at the hearing, on 26-01-2026, the above emails, without ever having previously confirmed their existence”.

To conclude, the Supreme Prosecutor concluded, “There is, in other words, no new, material or unknown, to the judging prosecutor, evidence, which, in our judgment, justifies the withdrawal of the case file from the file.”