The undersigned honorary professors, current professors and other lecturers in constitutional law at two of the oldest law schools and other universities in the country, we express our deep concern at the conclusion No. 1/2023 of the Attorney of the Supreme Court regarding telecommunications. provider . And this is because this opinion falls into a number of serious inaccuracies:

1. Mr. Prosecutor brazenly confuses the right to information of victims with the auditing powers of the FSA. The former can indeed be regulated by the legislator, as was recently done with Law 5002/2022. The regulation of the last, and especially the envisaged three years, is problematic. However, as long as it is not found unconstitutional or contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, it is valid.

2. On the contrary, ADAE’s auditing powers are granted directly to it by the Constitution (Article 19 § 2), and the legislator cannot limit their scope in any way. Competent under the Constitution to ensure confidentiality, ADAE has not only the ability but also the duty to review EYP, providers and all other factors involved to ensure they are doing a good job. And this at any time, ex officio or by complaint and without any objection to confidentiality, even for reasons of national security. It is one thing to inform the victim at his request, and another thing to apply to the AIEA, the purpose of which is to observe objective legality. This is what the constitutional legislator wanted, and Mr. Prosecutor’s opposite opinion, that each legislator can determine the scope of the State Audit Office’s auditing competence, has not the slightest foundation.

3. In any case, in view of the forthcoming litigation before the Council of State regarding the right of the affected parties to know, the issuance of the above opinion was unlawful, since, as previously decided by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court, no opinion is issued. for cases “which the competent tribunals are already considering or are about to hear”. And this, “not to influence their opinion.” (GnomeAceAP 10/2018, 15/2021 and 3/2022). After all, the Plenums of both the Supreme Court and the State Council have long ruled on the issue of unfair influence on pending cases, whenever the ruling majority wanted to overrule the verdict of the Judge [ΑΠ(Ολ.)40/1988, ΣτΕ(Ολ.) 542/1999, 677/2010].

four. And, finally, the word of the prosecutor about the possible prosecution, including members of the Anti-Corruption Commission, even for espionage (Article 148 of the Criminal Code). Let us point out that this barely concealed threat is by no means an appropriate means of overcoming the differences between the two immediate state bodies.

Nikos K. Alivisatos (University of Athens), Evangelos Venizelos (University of Athens), Giorgos Dellis (University of Athens), Yiannis Drosos (University of Athens), Akritas Kaidatzis (University of Thessaloniki), Iphigenia Kamtsidou (University of Thessaloniki), Alexandros Kessopoulos (University of Crete) , Xenophon Kontiadis (University of Peloponnese), Charalambos Kurundis (Open University), Panagiotis Mantzoufas (University of Thessaloniki), Lina Papadopoulou (University of Thessaloniki), Nikos Papaspirou (University of Athens), Philippos Spyropoulos (University of Athens), George Sotirelis (University of Athens), Yiannis Tasopoulos (University of Athens), Vasiliki Christou (University of Athens).

Note: Through his letter to “K” Mr. Philippos Spyropoulos explained that he did not sign the letter.

Alivisato “K” statement

Professor N.K. Alivisatos, to whom Mr. Spyropoulos’ letter was taken into account, made the following statement: “I personally read our statement to Mr. Spyropoulos, who assured me that he agreed with its content and signed it. Therefore, this is a retreat.”

Spiropoulos’ answer

Dear Mr Director,

Both communicators are bearers of the right to privacy of communication. If Mr. Alivisatos wishes, we can declassify our yesterday’s telephone conversation (initiated by Mr. Alivisatos) to prove whether I agree with his thoughts and position regarding the prosecutor’s opinion of the Supreme Court. I replied that at that moment I began to read the opinion and that I had not yet formed a personal opinion. The phone call ended with my answer: “I can’t tell if I agree or not because I don’t know the opinion yet.” It should be noted that he never told me that this was a joint statement by fellow professors of constitutional law.

Sincerely

Philip Spiropoulos