The Supreme Court gave ΕΥΠ three months to file on the Kukakis wiretap

State Council of Greece (ΣτΕ) gave, National Intelligence Service (ΕΥΠ) three-month period for transferring an official file in the case of lifting the confidentiality of a journalist’s communications Thanasis Koukakis.

The deadline begins to count after publication of the decision No. 709/2026 plenum ΣτΕwhich Greece’s highest administrative court requires ΕΥΠ send to the court a complete official file related to the decision to lift the confidentiality of the journalist’s communications. This is reported Mononews And Parapolitika.

What does the court require?

We are talking about the case of a journalist Thanasis Koukakiswho is seeking to clarify the reasons why the decision was made to lift the secrecy of his communications. Previously, spyware like Predatormaking the case one of the central parts of the Greek wiretapping scandal.

As I wrote earlier Kathimerini, ΣτΕ postponed the final decision on the case and demanded ΕΥΠ transfer the entire service file regarding the declassification of communications, as well as any related documents.

The court also provided an important option: if ΕΥΠ declares that a file or individual documents have been destroyed, the service must officially indicate under what rule this was done, and then ensure that the file is restored and submitted to the court. That is, the formula “the documents have disappeared, thank you everyone” doesn’t work here anymore. What a shame for lovers of administrative magic.

Why the Kukakis case is important

Case Kukakis has long gone beyond the personal complaint of one journalist. It is connected with a wider scandal around wiretaps, work ΕΥΠthe role of independent bodies and the use of spyware in Greece.

The journalist previously contacted Αρχή Διασφάλισης του Απορρήτου των Επικοινωνιών (ΑΔΑΕ, Office for Ensuring Communication Secrecy), demanding to check whether the secrecy of his communications was violated. He also challenged the refusal ΕΥΠ transfer the relevant file to an independent authority.

Now ΣτΕ in fact, it sets a specific deadline for the intelligence service and demands a documented response. This is important not only for Koukakis himself, but also for the entire institutional picture surrounding the scandal: if the intelligence service acted legally, the file should show the basis. If documents are destroyed, the court demands an explanation of who did it, when and by what right.

Three months that can show a lot

The new three-month frame makes the immediate period critical. ΕΥΠ Now she must either hand over the materials or officially explain the fate of the file. In both cases, the case takes on a new dynamic: it moves from the zone of political statements and mutual accusations to the zone of documentary control.

For the government, this story remains sensitive. The wiretapping scandal has already damaged trust in government institutions, and the journalist’s case Kukakis became one of the symbols of the question to which the authorities never gave a convincing public answer: who, why and on what basis was spying on journalists, politicians and public figures.

Legal requirement for ΕΥΠ does not mean automatic recognition of the illegality of the service’s actions. But it means something else: the state can no longer limit itself to vague references to national security. If there was a legitimate reason for lifting the secrecy of communications, it should be recorded in documents. If there are no documents, this is a separate problem, and no less serious.

Editorial comment

Solution ΣτΕ on business Thanasis Koukakis – this is a test not only for ΕΥΠbut also for the entire Greek system of institutional control. In a democratic state, an intelligence service cannot be a black box into which decisions to wiretap journalists disappear, and then from where only the phrase comes out “national security”.

If the state interfered with a journalist’s confidential communications, it is obliged to explain on what basis this was done. If a file is destroyed, the public has a right to know who authorized it and why. Otherwise, the fight against “security threats” too easily turns into a convenient screen for arbitrariness. And screens, as you know, are good in the theater, but look bad where law and control must work.

Source link