Coordinating Committee of the Plenary Meeting of the Presidents Greek Bar Associationson the occasion of shadowing its president PASOK-KINAL by Nikos Androulakistoday’s statement says, among other things, that the inviolability of the secrecy of communications is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the individual.

In particular, the announcement of the steering committee is as follows:

“1. The inviolability of the secrecy of communications is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the individual, which may be waived in exceptional cases, under particularly strict conditions and only under the guarantees of the law and solely for reasons of national security or for the detection of especially serious crimes. , in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 para. .1 S.

In fact, this protection should be especially strengthened in relation to political persons and especially persons with an institutional status, since in these cases the protection concerns not only the protected rights of the individual, but is also directly related to the democratic functioning of the state.

The need for increased protection also stems from the provisions of Article 61 par 3 C on parliamentary secrecy, Article 8 of the ECHR and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and for the removal of secrecy it cannot be sufficient for a prosecutor’s decision.

2. In view of the foregoing, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court must first of all investigate whether the removal of the privacy protection of telephone conversations from an incumbent member of the European Parliament, and then the chairman of the third party of the Greek Parliament, was lawful and justified. in particular, whether the competent prosecutor investigated the fulfillment of the essential conditions for the removal of confidentiality or simply surrounded the powers of the judicial authority in the assessment and actions of the EEM, and whether he continued the abuse and arbitrary application of the relevant provisions, leading to a violation or non-compliance with the legal framework of the confidentiality rule.

The choice of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court to conduct the preliminary investigation, and by himself in the case of the leakage of confidential information from the EMP, does not cancel the overriding need to investigate the substantive legality of the decision of the competent prosecutor to cancel confidentiality and seek disciplinary or criminal liability of persons not subject to Article 86S.

3. The main issue that has arisen is the need for an immediate review of the existing institutional framework in terms of addressing the confidentiality of communications by strengthening transparency, accountability and legal safeguards, as well as ensuring that ordinary judges make an appropriate decision.

4. In matters of democracy and the rule of law, there is no place for discounts and offsets, but there is an obligation to strictly observe the Constitution and the European legal order.

Any duties must be assigned personally and effectively.”