Opinion by Supreme Court Attorney Isidoros Dogiakos stating that under the new law in force, the Independent Communications Confidentiality Authority no longer has the authority to inform citizens requesting to be informed whether their communications have been monitored for national security reasons have triggered a response ADAE President Christos Rammos.

“ADAE didn’t get carte blanche”

Joanna Mandrow

A new landscape is being created by the opinion of the Supreme Court prosecutor in the political department on issues raised by complaints about the monitoring of communications of politicians and journalists on national security grounds. The opinion of the head of the prosecutor’s office, Isidoros Dogiakos, is multi-page and based on constitutional provisions and current legislation, as it has been shaped by laws in the past, as well as a recent law passed by the government before the holidays.

Mr. Dogiakos’ conclusion is that ADAE, the Independent Communications Confidentiality Authority, no longer has the power to inform citizens who request to be informed whether their communications have been monitored for national security reasons. And this is because, as the Supreme Court Prosecutor argued, using the provisions of Law 5002 of 2022, the responsibility for managing citizens’ requests for information has now passed from the hands of ADAE and has been entrusted to a three-member body, which includes two prosecutors and the president of ADAE. . The lack of authority to inform citizens about possible monitoring for national security reasons is of equal interest, as highlighted in the opinion, and the fact that levels of the anti-corruption commission cannot visit telecom operators in search of information, as happened before the holidays. when members of ADAE visited a telecommunications company (OTE) to check whether independent MEP Giorgos Kirtsos and journalist Tasos Telloglu were being followed.

Of course, the opinion makes extensive reference to the ADAE’s constitutional mechanisms and its powers to monitor any violations relating to the protection of telecommunications privacy, but it is clearly stated that of the ADAE’s powers, which remain unaffected by legislative provisions from time to time, what it no longer belongs to , concerns only the management of citizens’ requests for information for their possible monitoring.

Only the request of the affected party

The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court concludes, citing a number of provisions, that only an injured citizen can submit a request for information about possible surveillance.

Of particular interest is the part of the opinion concerning who is entitled to submit a request for information. The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court concludes, citing a number of provisions, that only an injured citizen can submit a request, and not, for example, a political person on behalf of others, as already happened with the request of the head of the official. opposition, Alexis Tsipras, who asked ADAE for information on whether institutional factors such as the head of the Armed Forces and others were monitored. Following this development, Mr. Tsipras’s request was met with a negative opinion from the prosecutor, and now it remains to be seen on this and other requests what will be the position that ADAE will take from now on. In any case, informing any citizen of possible surveillance, as emphasized in the opinion, is defined by Law 5002 of 2022 (adopted in early December) and is now the responsibility of a three-member body, of which ADAE is the president. member.

The recent law, as well as previous laws mentioned in the opinion, generally do not inform citizens that they are under national security surveillance. In accordance with the current legislation, which is analyzed in the opinion, a citizen can only be informed about his monitoring by a body of three people, and not ADAE, three years after its expiration and only if it is determined that the information will not cause harm. the purpose for which privacy was removed.

Also important is the part of the opinion that relates to the current legislation, according to which the Anti-Terrorism Service had and continues to have in its hands all the provisions for monitoring carried out by the EEM or the Anti-Terrorism Service, but also judicial decisions (decrees), by which the judge removes secrecy in order to establish grave crimes. In particular, the opinion cites the provisions governing the immediate transfer of all provisions to the EPA, as well as how it is recorded.

The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, in his opinion, cites the constitutional provisions for the establishment of ADDA, but emphasizes that the very constitution that established it states that its powers and activities are determined not by the same, but by a general law. To this end, he emphasizes that “the Constitution did not give ADAE carte blanche.”

Finally, Mr. Dogiacos stressed that the Criminal Code and special criminal laws provided for severe penalties for those who violated declassification laws on grounds of national security, citing provisions for up to ten years’ imprisonment.

Sharp response from Chr. Rammo to Isis. Doyako

Giannis Souliotis

The Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Isidoros Dogiakos, is not competent to give an opinion on provisions relating to the duties of the Communications Privacy Authority (ADAE). This was pointed out yesterday by ADAE President Christos Rammos in his written statement, responding to Mr. Dogiakos’s opinion on the possibility of ADAE conducting telephone monitoring audits.

In his particularly vehement response, Mr. Rammos first emphasizes that, under the Constitution, no government agency can exercise any form of preventive control or oversight of ADAE. “The Attorney General of the Supreme Court cannot, by reference to his general authority to give an opinion on “legal matters of general interest”, give an opinion on the interpretation and application of provisions relating to the constitutional powers of the AIAEA,” says Mr. Rammos. . And he goes on to formulate a legal opinion that Mr. Dogiakov’s contested opinion “does not entail any obligations at all and grossly violates the independence of the AIAEA, which directly follows from the Constitution.”

Recall that three weeks ago ADAE visited the premises of Cosmote to establish whether the phones of independent MEP Giorgos Kirtsos and journalist Tasos Telloglu are under the supervision of the National Intelligence Service. During the audit, the telecommunications provider’s legal counsel asked the agency’s auditors not to conduct the audit unless the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issues an opinion on the matter, citing a recent change in applicable law.

However, this control was completed and ADAE discovered that EYP had initiated a procedure to declassify the phones of Mr. Kirtsos and Telloglu, citing national security concerns. In the intervening period until today, ADAE, by decision of its plenary meeting, has carried out ex officio reviews of telecommunications service providers to determine whether there are provisions to remove privacy for six telephone connections.

The specific decision of ADAE was made under pressure from the leader of the main opposition, Alexis Tsipras, who visited the offices of the ADAE on December 7 with a specific request. Information from “K” indicates that certain checks have already been completed. Well-informed sources note that an attempt will be made to inform the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the results of the audits, of course, without making final decisions on this issue.