A striking lack of clarity — and at times outright ignorance — characterized the testimony of key witnesses in the ongoing Athens trial surrounding Greece’s wiretapping scandal, deepening concerns about the rigor and credibility of the official investigations. The case, closely watched both domestically and abroad, involves Greece’s National Intelligence Service (EYP) and private entities that operated illegal surveillance through the powerful Predator spyware.
Two officials from the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy (ADAE), the independent regulator tasked with overseeing lawful surveillance procedures, described inspections that were far from comprehensive. Their appearances before the court on Monday revealed limited investigative efforts, conflicting accounts, and a series of omissions that baffled judicial authorities.
Former ADAE vice-president Michail Sakkas, who served from 2016 to 2023, conceded during questioning that the agency’s inspections lacked depth. He repeatedly stated that he knew nothing about Predator and emphasized that ADAE’s mandate was restricted to verifying the formal legality of surveillance orders, not examining their substance or necessity. The authority, he explained, only became involved in the case of PASOK leader Nikos Androulakis after the politician filed a complaint, at which point ADAE confirmed that a two-month surveillance order had been issued.
What most unsettled the court was Sakkas’s account of ADAE’s on-site inspection at EYP’s facilities in Agia Paraskevi, a northeastern suburb of Athens. He admitted that inspectors were escorted into a single amphitheater-style room, did not examine any computers, did not request a staff list, and made no attempt to access additional areas. The presiding judge questioned how such a superficial tour could serve as the basis for ADAE’s conclusion that EYP had no involvement with illegal software. The prosecutor pressed further, demanding to know why no computers had been checked and why ADAE seemed content merely to observe spaces preselected by the intelligence service itself. Sakkas could offer no substantive answers, at one point responding simply, “I don’t know.”
The narrative shifted abruptly when ADAE board member and university professor Dimitris Vergados testified. Although he accompanied Sakkas on the same visit, his description differed considerably. Vergados insisted that inspectors opened every accessible door and found no computers or active personnel inside — only a handful of individuals he described as members of an academic working group. Confronted with the contradictions, the judge noted the stark divergence between the two accounts. Vergados replied coolly that each witness was “responsible only for what he says.”
Vergados revealed to the court that inspectors discovered an encrypted telecommunications line leading directly to the National Intelligence Service. Although the existence of the encrypted line was confirmed, he said ADAE could not determine what kind of data it carried or for what purpose the connection was being used.
Both men reiterated that ADAE’s oversight authority is limited: it may verify whether a surveillance order was issued correctly, but it cannot investigate the reasoning or intelligence claims behind it. In the case of journalist Thanasis Koukakis, another prominent figure whose phone was monitored, Vergados admitted that the justification for his surveillance was missing from file, something that is not permitted under the current law.
The trial later turned to Intellexa, the private company accused of marketing Predator, whose operations have drawn the attention of European institutions and international watchdogs. Former Intellexa employee Panagiotis Koutsios testified that he worked for just over a year as a pre-sales engineer, presenting a big-data analytics platform to foreign government clients.
Asked whether he had ever inquired about the cost of the software he was presenting, he replied that he did not know how much the company sold it for. “Didn’t that strike you as odd? Weren’t you curious about the price of the product you were presenting?” the presiding judge asked, only to receive another negative answer.
He said the company operated with strict internal silos and denied any knowledge of surveillance products, insisting he learned of Intellexa’s alleged involvement in illegal monitoring only after leaving the firm. Remarkably, he said he had never met Intellexa’s alleged founder, Tal Dilian, until the day he encountered him in the courtroom.
The wiretapping trial is scheduled to resume on Tuesday with the continuation of Mr Koutsios’s testimony.
