The only thing that is certain is that the Committee on Institutions and Transparency is not legitimized to accuse the prosecutor of the Supreme Court because she signed the conclusion on the wiretapping. Besides, he will not be able to, since there is the cerberus of the governing majority, the one that accepted without complaint the contempt of the Greek Parliament, when some months ago some civil servants refused to answer the committee's questions on this specific issue. 
Let us recall, once again, that "Merrick Garland became the third Attorney General in American history to be indicted for "contempt of Congress" for refusing to turn over audio files related to the handling of classified documents in his possession American President Joe Biden" (PBS, 12.6.2024).
This conclusion will remain as a black question mark, one of many in the history of the Supreme Court. The MPs, however, can ask a lot about the functioning of the Judiciary. Why was this case not cleared up, two years after it was revealed? It should be noted that the much-discussed conclusion of the attorney general simply says that the National Intelligence Service did not conduct the illegal, through Predator, surveillance. However, it does not specify who did them and why.
The much-discussed conclusion of the deputy prosecutor simply says that the EYP did not conduct illegal surveillance through the Predator. However, it does not specify who did them and why.
The question in question is not one of simple criminal law. It's not even about a tragic accident that rocked the country. Some tried or succeeded in monitoring the leader of a party (Nikos Androulakis), a deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court (Christos Bardakis), the leader of GEETHA (Konstantinos Floros), half of the cabinet (Dendias, Hatzidakis, Theodorikakos, Chrysochoidis, Gerapetritis, Georgiadis, Pleuris et al.), officers of the Hellenic Police, journalists, business executives and we don't know who and how many others. Did the nation's eternal enemies do it?
Were they friends and allies? Did Hezbollah do it? Was it The Revolutionary Guards? Who, anyway? Justice owes citizens a convincing answer. Not only for reasons of democratic order. The government's narrative on the wiretapping says that in the country the rule is "bate, eavesdroppers grind", while the conclusion of the Supreme Court adds "and grinds don't give".
This is what concerns the part of illegal surveillance. There is also the leg of legal (and not legal, as the government propagates) links. According to the announcement of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, "the procedure provided for by the Law was strictly observed, which, among other things, throughout time, does not require the citation of a special justification in the above provisions". Nice! Did any other judge ask, even after the fact, the reasons for monitoring Mr. Androulakis and other targets of the legal links?
Does "confidentiality" also cover the EYP vis-à-vis the judiciary? How, after all, are the surveillance decisions of citizens – even of the President of the Republic!– controlled, if not even the judges know the reasons for surveillance? Who ensures the health of our Republic, the private life of citizens? In addition, since the deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court was at the shelters of the EYP, did he ask them "why, guys, don't you implement the decision of the Justice, which orders that Mr. Androulakis be informed about the reasons for his surveillance?".
Finally, there is a legitimate and constitutionally appropriate question that the Parliament's Institutions and Transparency Committee can ask the prosecutor of the Supreme Court: "Why do you think that less than three out of ten citizens (27%) trust the Justice and the judges today?" .
