The recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled that the retention of telecommunications data violates fundamental rights, is causing great headaches for the Police and the Attorney General's Office.
In fact, the Attorney General, recognizing the implications that this decision may have for the course of very serious cases, recently asked the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court (five-member panel), before which an appeal is pending regarding the illegal or not testimony. arose from the lifting of telecommunications secrecy, time to study the new data and place.
Specifically, the representative of the Legal Service, which handles this case, prosecutor Elena Zachariadou justified her written request for a three-week postponement of the examination of the appeal stating that "because the decision in the case" Tele 21.12.2016 Sverige AB "has only been issued on 2 C203 / 15 and C698 / 15 ”, which is attached, and because the implications of this decision should be considered before the Attorney General's position before the Supreme Court in this case, it was considered appropriate to request a 3-week adjournment of the hearing of the case ".
In this case, based on the telecommunications data, the Police secured arrest warrants against a couple and then filed a criminal case against them and two other persons with charges, including for conspiracy to commit crimes, ie not sending a text message. in which there was a threat of killing a third person.
According to information in the Legal Service, there is intense concern for the handling of the issue since the decision to be issued by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court will be binding for all courts and any finding that the retention of telecommunications data by telecommunications service companies and subsequent Their securing by the Police in the context of the investigation of serious cases is illegal, then all the relevant testimony and the testimony that resulted from the removal of the telecommunication secret is illegal and can not be presented before a court.
Source: Liberal