The trial in one of Greece’s most politically charged scandals in recent years—the wiretapping affair involving high-level surveillance operations—opened on Thursday at the Single-Member Misdemeanor Court of Athens, with immediate legal controversy over the legitimacy of the proceedings.
From the four individuals charged in the case, only Tal Dilian, a former officer in Israeli intelligence and founder of the controversial spyware company Intellexa, appeared in court. The remaining defendants—Giannis Lavranos, founder of the Greek tech firm Krikel; Felix Bitzios, a shareholder in Intellexa; and Sara Hamu, Dilian’s wife and company manager—were represented by their legal counsel. A court-appointed interpreter was seated next to Dilian, following a request by his defense team.
The trial is being closely watched both in Greece and abroad, not only for the potential political fallout but also because prominent Greek political figures are involved as witnesses for the prosecution.
Among them were Nikos Androulakis, leader of Greece’s PASOK party and one of the alleged surveillance targets; Olga Gerovasili, a lawmaker from the left-wing SYRIZA party; and Christos Rammos, the head of Greece’s independent authority for communications privacy.
As the hearing began, the defense filed an objection to the validity of the summons, claiming that both the formal indictment and essential documents had never been translated into languages their clients understand. Lawyers representing Dilian and Hamu said their clients, whose native tongues are Hebrew and Polish respectively, were never provided official translations of key legal materials. Instead, they had to rely on their attorneys’ verbal summaries in English. The defense argued that this violated their clients’ right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under international human rights law.
According to the defense, the lack of access to documents in a comprehensible language put the defendants at a disadvantage and undermined the principle of equality before the law. “The essence of a fair trial is understanding the charges and evidence. Our clients have been deprived of that,” said one of the attorneys.
The prosecution, however, countered that the objection was untimely and part of a delaying tactic. The public prosecutor maintained that there was no formal indication during the pretrial phase that the defendants did not understand Greek. The civil plaintiffs echoed that position, pointing out that the case documents were in Greek and had been signed by the accused. “This is procedural gamesmanship,” said a lawyer for the civil party. “The defendants have been fully informed of the charges and the case file.”
Tensions rose further when Dilian himself addressed the court, threatening to dismiss his legal team and represent himself in English if his request for translation was not granted. “I do not speak Greek,” he said. “I cannot follow the proceedings or know what is being said.”
The defense insisted that the court had already acknowledged the language barrier by appointing an interpreter, which they said should logically extend to the written documents in the case. “The court cannot accept that our clients don’t speak Greek during trial, yet assume they fully understood the legal documents beforehand,” one lawyer said. “We are not asking for delays—we are asking for fairness.”
The court was not persuaded. After a short recess, it rejected the motion for nullification. The prosecution argued that the defendants had a responsibility to request translated documents earlier in the legal process and that failure to do so could not now be used as grounds to disrupt the proceedings. The prosecutor added that allowing such objections at this stage would amount to abuse of process.
Following the ruling, the defense requested a pause in proceedings, saying that their clients had not even been able to read the findings of Greece’s personal data protection authority—documents seen as central to the prosecution’s case. “Our client must know what the state claims,” one lawyer said. “Only then can this be a fair trial. The court must offer a way forward.”
The trial is expected to continue in the coming weeks, though the defense has hinted at possible appeals to higher courts, including international legal bodies, over alleged violations of due process.
