Η ΕΥΠ του Μητσοτάκη παρακολουθούσε τον δημοσιογράφο Κουκάκη

[Μαδουραίος]

Η ΕΥΠ που υπάγεται στον πρωθυπουργό σταμάτησε να παρακολουθεί τον δημοσιογράφο Κουκάκη όταν ο ίδιος το υποψιάστηκε

Ραγδαίες είναι οι εξελίξεις στην υπόθεση παρακολούθησης του Θανάση Κουκάκη, εκθέτοντας την κυβέρνηση. Ενώ ο Γιάννης Οικονόμου ισχυρίστηκε ότι επρόκειτο για «ιδιωτική παρακολούθηση», εξηγώντας ότι «οι ελληνικές αρχές δεν χρησιμοποιούν τα συγκεκριμένα λογισμικά (spyware)», το reportersunited.gr φέρνει στο φως τις πράξεις που καταδεικνύουν ότι πίσω από την παρακολούθηση του δημοσιογράφου βρισκόταν η ΕΥΠ.

https://thepressproject.gr/i-efp-pou-yp ... psiastike/

[Μαδουραίος]

Εχθρός του Κράτους: Αποδεικνύουμε ότι η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη παρακολουθούσε τον δημοσιογράφο Θανάση Κουκάκη

https://www.reportersunited.gr/8646/eyp-koukakis/

[Δημοκράτης]

Διαδώστε πριν το κατεβασουν

[Otto Weininger]

Χεστηκαμε

[Eθνικοκοινωνιστης]

θα βγει η κνδ αυτοδυναμη

κρατηστε το

[Bandit59]

Διαδώστε πριν το κατεβασουν

[Μαδουραίος]

[argouen]

Είχε ιό spyware στο κινητό = τον παρακολουθoύσε η ΕΥΠ ?
https://www.lifo.gr/now/greece/thanasis ... story-meso

[πατησιωτης]

[Μπίστης]

Και τι θέλετε να κάνει η ΕΥΠ, να μαντεύει τι θα έλεγαν ?

[George_V]

Βασικα μονος του υπονομευσε την υποθεση του με το να μιλησει με την αλλη πλευρα και να δεχτει συμβιβασμο χωρις να ενημερωσει το δικαστηριο.

Βασικα κατεστησε ο ιδιος την προσφυγη του ανευ αντικειμενου και φυσικα εφαγε Χ απο το δικαστηριο και με το δικιο του κιολας.

Η απαντηση Κουκακη: Συγνωμη δεν διαβασα τα ψιλα γραμματα των ορων εμπιστευτικοτητας παρακαλω καντε τη δεκτη ξανα.


Ε ειναι ηλιθιος ο ανθρωπος.

[Otto Weininger]

θα βγει η κνδ αυτοδυναμη

κρατηστε το

Το κρατήσαμε.

[Frappezitis]

Και ποιον δεν παρακολουθει η δεξια !

[ΠΑΓΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ]

Να βάλουμε την απόφαση του ΕΔΑΔ γιατί έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον:


THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37659/22
Athanasios KOUKAKIS
against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 37659/22) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 July 2022 by a Greek national, Mr Athanasios Koukakis (“the applicant”), who was born in 1978, lives in Pefki and was represented by Mr Z. Kesses, a lawyer practising in Athens;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, President of the State Legal Council;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
A. The circumstances of the case
1. The applicant is a financial journalist. As he suspected that his phone conversations were intercepted by the National Information Service, he submitted on 12 August 2020 a complaint to the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy (Αρχή Διασφάλισης του Απορρήτου των Επικοινωνιών, hereinafter “the Authority”) asking to be informed on whether his phone communications were intercepted.
2. Article 5 § 9 of Law no. 2225/1994, as in force at that time, provided that after the end of the measure to lift the confidentiality of communications, the Authority could inform the persons concerned of the measure provided that its purpose was not jeopardised. On 10 March 2021 the Authority asked the prosecutor seconded to the National Information Service whether the legal requirements for informing the applicant of the measure had been fulfilled. On 31 March 2021 Article 5 § 9 of Law no. 2225/1994 was amended so that the Authority could inform the persons concerned only in case the measure had been imposed in the context of serious offences, excluding this possibility for measures imposed on national security grounds. On 29 July 2021 the Authority replied to the applicant that there had been no breach of the relevant legislation.
3. On 15 April 2022 an article was published in press alleging that in June 2020 the National Information Service had requested a two‑month lift of confidentiality on the applicant’s mobile phone number and in July a two month extension of the measure, relying on reasons of national security. According to the article, on the very date of the submission of the applicant’s complaint, the National Information Service asked to end the measure. The lift, its extension and the end were ordered by a prosecutor seconded to the National Information Service.
4. In the meantime, on 6 April 2022 the applicant, having received information that his mobile phone had been infected by Predator spyware, requested a thorough investigation by the Authority. He further complained on 4 May 2022 before the National Transparency Authority and, again, on 13 May 2022 before the Authority for Communication Security and Privacy. On 18 April 2022 the head prosecutor at the Athens Criminal Court of First Instance ordered a preliminary investigation. On 9 June 2022 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint as regards both the interception by the National Information Service and the installation of the spyware.
5. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that under domestic law it was impossible to be officially notified of the lift of confidentiality of communications imposed for national security reasons; that the manner and the techniques of surveillance, the means of communication and data concerned were not defined; the reasons of national security and the categories of persons who could be targeted were not delimited; and there were no competent authority and procedure to supervise the use, storage and erasure of the collected data. He further complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 8 of lack of an effective remedy and of having no right to be informed of the surveillance.
B. Friendly-settlement proceedings and the relevant publications
6. By a letter of 15 January 2024, the applicant was informed of the Court’s decision to give notice of his application to the Government. Draft declarations setting out a friendly-settlement proposal were sent to the parties by the Court’s Registry and they were given until 3 April 2024 to discuss it. The letter informed the applicant of the requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly-settlement negotiations in accordance with Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court. It also indicated that the content of proposals or submissions in this regard must not be referred to in any submissions made in the context of the main proceedings.
7. On 14 February 2024 Mr N. P., journalist at BBC News, posted on social network “X”, in connection with the BBC documentary audio program “Reporting on Greece”, that the applicant “revealed to [their] documentary that the ECHR proposed an out-of-court settlement along with an 8,500 euros (EUR) compensation from the Greek Republic to resolve his appeal for his surveillance by the National Intelligence Service”. In the relevant audio program the applicant made a statement by which he disclosed information on the Court’s friendly-settlement proposal.
8. By a letter dated 16 February 2024 the Court reiterated to the applicant that in case it was established that the person concerned was directly responsible for the disclosure, such failure to comply with the confidentiality rule, governed by Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2, may result in the application being declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of application under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. It invited him to submit his comments on the matter. On 6 March 2024 the applicant presented his arguments and requested the Court to declare the application admissible and to continue its examination. By letter dated 28 March 2024 the Government requested that the application be declared inadmissible for abuse of the right of individual application.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
9. The Government submitted that similar posts disclosing the content of the friendly-settlement proposal and its details were also made on other high visibility websites such as www.in.gr and www.tanea.gr. They emphasised that the applicant was represented by a lawyer and maintained that informing the public on the evolution of the case or on any important aspect of it should not breach the requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly settlement negotiations. As the parties had until 3 April 2024 to discuss the terms of a possible friendly settlement (see paragraph 6 above), the applicant’s conduct undermined the non-contentious phase of proceedings and rendered it devoid of purpose. Therefore, the Government invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible as constituting an abuse of the right of application.
10. The applicant argued that he had not intended to breach the confidentiality rules and that he was not aware that he had breached them as he had not noticed the information on the confidentiality requirement in the Court’s letter of 15 January 2024 (see paragraph 6 above). He explained that he had understood from the wording of that letter that the parties were not allowed to refer to the proposals or submissions relating to a friendly settlement that had not been successful during the examination of the application in the contentious proceedings. He further maintained that he had no intent or desire to undermine the proceedings before the Court or to discredit the Government’s actions. As this was his only application before the Court his actions were the result of unawareness and lack of experience. He expressed his deep regret for the incident.
11. He also submitted that he had acted in good faith, that he had immediately asked Mr N.P. to have his statements removed from the audio file and they had been removed. He did not intend to reveal information about the proceedings as no attempt had been made to negotiate a settlement up to that moment. In his understanding, the purpose of the confidentiality requirement was to facilitate the friendly settlement procedure and to protect both parties from pressure. However, as no relevant proposal had been made by the Government, the proceedings had not been influenced. Therefore, his statements should not be considered as an abuse of the right of petition. Additionally, he argued that declaring his application inadmissible would not be proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring the freedom of the press in a democratic society. In view of the subject matter of the case, concerning complaints of secret surveillance of a journalist and the alleged lack of guarantees for lifting of the confidentiality of communications, the Court should continue the examination of the case because the respect for human rights so requires.
12. In accordance with Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential. This rule does not allow for an individual assessment of how much detail is disclosed (see Lesnina Veletrgovina d.o.o. v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 37619/04, 2 March 2010). It prohibits the parties from making information concerning the friendly-settlement negotiations public, either through the media, or by a letter likely to be read by a significant number of people, or by any other means (see Abbasov and Others v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 36609/08, § 30, 28 May 2013).
13. Furthermore, the general purpose of the principle of confidentiality is to protect the parties and the Court against possible pressure. Consequently, an intentional breach of the duty of confidentiality of friendly-settlement negotiations may be considered as an abuse of the right of application and result in the application being rejected (see Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007; Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 798/05, § 66, 15 September 2009; and Y and others v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 1666/19, § 25, 15 September 2020).
14. In order to be regarded as an abuse of application, the direct responsibility of the applicant (or his legal representative) in the disclosure must be established with sufficient certainty (see, for example, Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 68, and Barreau and Others v. France (dec.), no. 24697/09, 13 December 2011).
15. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that several media published information on the friendly-settlement procedure, including the exact amount of the friendly-settlement proposal. In particular, in view of the content of the post on social network “X” (see paragraph 7 above), it is beyond doubt that the disclosure was attributable to the applicant and not to any other party (see Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 57990/10, § 21, 2 September 2014). The applicant did not deny that he was responsible for the disclosure of the information in that post.
16. The letter of 15 January 2024 made it clear that the friendly‑settlement procedure was strictly confidential and explicitly cited Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court (see paragraph 6 above). The applicant who was represented by a lawyer was therefore aware of that requirement and should have complied with it at all stages of the proceedings. However, after the application had been communicated to the Government, and pending the time-limit for the parties to consider a friendly settlement (see paragraph 6 above), the applicant revealed information on the friendly settlement procedure, including the amount proposed as compensation (see, for similar situation, Codreanu v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], no. 42277/17, 23 November 2023).
17. Against this background and in view of the nature and extent of confidential information disclosed by the applicant to a major broadcasting organisation, the Court cannot accept the argument that the applicant disclosed the details of the friendly settlement procedure unknowingly or not deliberately. It concludes that the applicant’s conduct amounts to an intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality, which, in line with the Court’s case-law, must also be regarded as an abuse of the right of individual application.
18. It follows that the application is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as constituting an abuse of the right of application and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 July 2024.

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President