The Athens Bar Association is now weighing a formal appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, in a move that would internationalize a case many lawyers describe as a lingering institutional wound for the country’s rule of law.
The prospect of a Strasbourg challenge was laid out during a press conference in Athens, where constitutional law scholar Nikos Alivizatos — who is also representing PASOK leader Nikos Androulakis in a separate but related case before the same court — argued that recent legal developments have opened a viable path for such an appeal.
Androulakis, who was targeted by surveillance while running for the leadership of the socialist party, has already taken his case to Strasbourg after securing a favorable ruling from Greece’s top administrative court. His complaint centers on the refusal of Greece’s intelligence service, the National Intelligence Service (EYP), to disclose why he had been placed under surveillance.
The Athens Bar Association’s intervention comes on the heels of its unprecedented call for the resignation of Supreme Court prosecutor Konstantinos Tzavelas. The move followed his decision to keep the wiretapping case closed, despite a lower court ruling that called for further investigation into potential additional crimes — including espionage — and the involvement of new suspects.
That decision has become a lightning rod for criticism within Greece’s legal community. Across the political and professional spectrum, speakers at the press conference warned that judicial handling of the case risks undermining democratic institutions.
“The need for a full and transparent investigation is now imperative,” said Athens Bar Association president Andreas Koutsoulambros, stressing that the organization’s leadership was united in its opposition to shelving the case. He argued that the prosecutor’s decision runs counter not only to core principles of criminal law, but also to established case law from the Strasbourg court.
Koutsoulambros also raised ethical concerns, suggesting that Tzavelas — who held supervisory responsibilities over the intelligence service during the period under scrutiny — should have recused himself from the case.
Vice president Christina Tsagli went further, describing the episode as a “major violation of the rule of law” and an “attempted cover-up that shakes the foundations of the political system.” She noted that an overwhelming majority within the Bar Association’s governing council shared that assessment, framing the prosecutor’s refusal to act as a form of institutional breakdown.
At the heart of the legal strategy now taking shape is a growing European dimension to the scandal. Alivizatos pointed to multiple pending cases in Strasbourg that could shape the outcome of any Greek appeal. One concerns the independence of regulatory authorities, following Greek court rulings that dismissed challenges by the Bar Association over appointments to key watchdog bodies. That case is already before the European court.
A second, more directly tied to the surveillance affair, concerns Androulakis’ complaint over the intelligence service’s refusal to provide transparency. According to Alivizatos, the Greek state is “fighting tooth and nail” in Strasbourg to defend its position.
He also highlighted recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights that could prove pivotal. Those rulings, he suggested, establish a framework under which the actions of Greek judicial authorities — including the decision to shelve the wiretapping investigation — could be scrutinized against European standards.
For critics, time is a critical factor. Statutes of limitation are rapidly approaching, and legal experts warn that a significant number of potential offenses linked to the scandal have already expired, raising the stakes for swift action.
The broader political implications are also beginning to surface. Former justice minister Antonis Roupakiotis called for constitutional reform, arguing that the method of appointing senior judicial figures must be revisited as part of an upcoming revision process.
Other prominent lawyers framed the Bar Association’s intervention as a necessary institutional response. Thanasis Kampagiannis, a high-profile trial lawyer, described it as an act of responsibility in defense of democratic norms, while board member Theodoros Mantas warned that delays could prove fatal given the looming expiration of prosecutable offenses.
