For several days now, the Greek vocabulary has been replenished with one word “epiconision”, which is still highlighted in red computer spelling. In official (and not only) announcements, it is always accompanied by an aggressive clause: the link was, they say, “legitimate”. The true concept of legitimacy – much more important than linguistic creations for EYP – is in danger of becoming one of the victims of the sad story of wiretapping that is unfolding before us. The access of the secret services to the conversations of the politician, who, at the critical moment when this happened, claimed and occupied the leadership of the opposition party, is characterized as legal on the following grounds: it was carried out in accordance with the established procedure defined in the current regulatory framework, after approval, in fact, prosecutor. But is adherence to the formula, the Pool of Siloam for the rule of law, a necessary and sufficient condition for such a severe curtailment of basic human rights to be considered legal?

From a legal point of view, the observation in question was ostensibly “legitimate”. This special quality gives it a certain presumption of legitimacy. However, this is a completely rebuttable presumption. Whether the link was in fact legal depends on the merits of the case, about which there are serious questions. From there, it will judge whether the administrative authorities and the prosecutor’s office exercised their powers and whether they applied the law in accordance with the Constitution, EU legislation. and the European Convention on Human Rights. The authentic interpretation of the fundamental rules that ensure the confidentiality of messages does not belong to them, not to a government representative, but to a competent independent body (IAEA), the Greek judiciary and possibly European courts.

Is compliance with the formulas a necessary and sufficient condition for such a serious infringement of fundamental human rights to be considered lawful?

The ease with which one speaks of a “legitimate” connection today should not be misleading. If this were the case, then the wiretapping of an authoritarian regime would have received the appropriate designation when described in some legislative text. Conversely, if the EMP’s actions were legal in the proper sense of the word, then why should the prime minister apologize? Because the secret services would do their job properly? From what emerges, one thing is clear: the current structure does not sufficiently guarantee that the commencement of the consultation process will be accompanied by guarantees appropriate to such an emergency measure. And if everyone can, in principle, become the object of an investigation by the EYR, then the case of politicians undoubtedly demonstrates great institutional sensitivity. It would be good not to confuse the key aspects of our, fortunately, advanced constitutional system. Political responsibility is one thing, but legitimacy is another. Also, what is legal is not necessarily legal. And this is not necessarily moral, as was clearly shown in one of the previous episodes of our political life.

* Mr. Yorgos Dellis is a professor at the Athens School of Law.