Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Greece: From Statutory Nullities to a Categorical Statutory Exclusionary Rule

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 20))

Abstract

The search for truth has always been a central principle in Greek criminal procedure as was the case in France, Italy and Spain and evidentiary irregularities were also dealt with using the old institution of “nullities”. This has changed, now, as Greece has introduced both statutory and constitutional exclusionary rules which function alongside the traditional “nullities”. The Greek Supreme Court has, however, clearly stated that violations of statutory exclusionary rules or commands of the constitution or international human rights instruments are the equivalent of “absolute nullities” and require exclusion of evidence derived therefrom. A clear statutory exclusionary rule applies whenever the act leading to the discovery of evidence constitutes a crime in the Greek Penal Code and a constitutional provision requires exclusion of evidence gathered in violation of the right to privacy. This Chapter explores the application of these rules by the Greek Supreme Court as well as a recent trend of that court to craft exceptions to what were earlier viewed as more rigid exclusionary rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Prosecutors in Greece are not parties to the procedure, but independent judicial officials obliged to search for the material truth.

  2. 2.

    See Androulakis (2007, 187).

  3. 3.

    Cf. Court of Appeal of Patras, Judgment No. 26-27/1997, Poinika Chronika Law Review (1997), 118, (1997), comment, Agnastopoulous, 118–120.

  4. 4.

    See Androulakis (2007, 214) and Spinellis (1986, 865 ff.).

  5. 5.

    See Triantafyllou (1993a, 1083).

  6. 6.

    Androulakis (2007, 207).

  7. 7.

    In any event, as will be shown below, the lack of any explicit exclusionary rule at constitutional level, is covered by other rules in inferior legal sources which prohibit the use of statements obtained by torture.

  8. 8.

    See Kostaras (1984, 169 ff), Spinellis (1986, 865 ff.), Dimitratos (1992, 47 ff.), and Dalakouras (1996, 337 ff.).

  9. 9.

    See Sect. 11.3.2.1 below for discussion of exclusion of fruits of torture.

  10. 10.

    See Karras (2006, 742 ff.) and Triantafyllou (1993b, 425 ff.).

  11. 11.

    See for example Hellenic Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 1267/1985 and 2176/2007.

  12. 12.

    See for example Hellenic Supreme Court Judgment No. 993/2008.

  13. 13.

    See e.g. Hellenic Supreme Court Judgment No. 1473/2002 in regard to testimony in court by a police investigator who had participated in the investigation of the case. Pursuant to § 211A CCP these persons are not competent witnesses.

  14. 14.

    It has been argued in the literature that § 177(2) CCP establishes a new case of absolute nullity. See Karras (2006, 742).

  15. 15.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 761/1973, Poinika Chronika Law Review (1973), 806 ff, comment, Benakis.

  16. 16.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 1150/1989.

  17. 17.

    See, for example, Hellenic Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 783/2001, 71/2007 and 316/2007.

  18. 18.

    See also Hellenic Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 9/1994, 589/94 and more recently 297/2002 regarding illegal wiretappings, 1568/2004 regarding illegal overhearing of a private conversation with an acoustic device, 622/2003 and 2035/2005 regarding a recording of a private discussion and 1713/2006 regarding secret bank documents. The same view has been supported with several arguments in legal theory. See Karras (2006, 737 ff), Papageorgiou-Gonatas (1989, 564), Konstantinides (1995, 1183), and Dimitratos (2001, 13).

  19. 19.

    See recent Judgments Nos. 1628/2006 and 416/2007.

  20. 20.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 2433/2003.

  21. 21.

    See for example Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 1375/2004.

  22. 22.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgments Nos. 1317/2001, Poinika Chronika (2002), 435 ff., comment, Anagnostopoulos and 874/2004.

  23. 23.

    See Triantafyllou (1993b, 96 ff.).

  24. 24.

    See Iliopoulos-Strangas (2003) and Triantafyllou (2007, 295 ff).

  25. 25.

    See Triantafyllou (1993b, 23 ff).

  26. 26.

    Androulakis (2007, 215) and Tzannetis (1995, 12 ff). With special emphasis on violations of the defendants’ rights, Dalakouras (1996, 344 ff).

  27. 27.

    See Triantafyllou (1993b, 429 ff), where I express the opinion that, regardless of the nullity produced, by virtue of article 175 CCP, an illegal search renders inadmissible all indirect evidence derived from it, such as the results of seizures, other searches, confessions etc.

  28. 28.

    See Papageorgiou-Gonatas (1989, 561 ff) and Dimitratos (2001, 9 ff).

  29. 29.

    Karras (2006, 2006, 744).

  30. 30.

    In a plenary judgment (No. 2/1996), not referring to the exclusion of evidence, the Hellenic Supreme Court has ruled that such dependence has to be “real and exclusive”. The court defined dependent acts as only those which are produced because of the initial invalid act, which is, legally and logically, a prerequisite for them.

  31. 31.

    Hellenic Supreme Court Judgment No. 1610/2000.

  32. 32.

    See more details in Triantafyllou (1993b,401 ff), where I adopt a broad interpretation of the concept of dependence resulting in the exclusion of evidence produced by a wide range of procedural acts and statements, including seizures, other searches, confessions etc.

  33. 33.

    See Karras (2006, 740), Tzannetis (1998, 107), and Dimitratos (2001, 11).

  34. 34.

    Cf. Piraeus Multi-Member Court of First Instance, Judgment No, 7056/2004, Poinika Chronika Law Review (2006), 459, comment, Tsolias, which excluded illegally seized mail, based on the norm contained in Art. 19(3) Const.

  35. 35.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgments Nos. 42/2004, 1622/2005, 611/2006, 1537/2007, 813/2008 and 2617/2008.

  36. 36.

    One could reach the same conclusion, i.e. that the exclusionary rule of Art. 19(3) did not apply in the cases examined by the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution regulates only the cases, where illegal wiretappings were obtained in the exercise of state powers. Consequently, any illegal evidence gathered by individuals does not fall within the scope of the provision. See on this controversial issue, Triantafyllou (2007). However, the Supreme Court decisions do not seem to adopt this view.

  37. 37.

    See on this issue Triantafyllou (1993b, 112 ff.).

  38. 38.

    Ibid, 106 ff.

  39. 39.

    Cf. the opinion of the Public Prosecutor by Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 13/2004, who regards searches of automobiles as body searches contributing thus to the confusion which exists on this point.

  40. 40.

    See also Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 1561/2005.

  41. 41.

    See a critical presentation of these opinions in Tsolka (2002, 85 ff.).

  42. 42.

    See e.g., Funke v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 297; Murray v. United Kingdom, (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29, Saunders v. United Kingdom (1996) 23 E.H.R.R. 313.

  43. 43.

    See Tsolka (2002, 100).

  44. 44.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 2/1999 (Plen.), Poinika Chronika Law Review (1999), 811 ff, comment, Anagnostopoulos.

  45. 45.

    See Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 1/2004 (Plen), in Poinika Chronika Law Review (2005), 113 ff., note, Anagnostopoulos, and in Poiniki Diki Law Review (2004), 917, comment, Papadamakis. See also Judgment 1731/2007. In his written opinion as to the latter case, the public prosecutor confirmed that this right applies to all interrogations of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. Violation of the right would thus render any act related thereto invalid.

  46. 46.

    See previous footnote and Androulakis (2007, 214) and Dalakouras (1996, 340).

  47. 47.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 761/1973, Poinika Chronika Law Review (1973), 806 ff, comment, Benakis.

  48. 48.

    Ibid. See also, Androulakis (1974, 1352), Kostaras (1984, 169 ff), Charalampakis (1995, 345), and Dalakouras (1996, 345).

  49. 49.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 611/2006.

  50. 50.

    See Dalakouras (1989, 319 ff); Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 556/1993, Poinika Chronika Law Review (1993), 387, comment, Livos. Karras (2006, 424) and Tsolka (2002, 150ff).

  51. 51.

    See also Judgments Nos. 1750/2008, concerning testimony taken by police authorities and 90/2006, 2521/2008 and 133/2009, concerning testimony before officials of the Financial Crime Authority. Surprisingly Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 377/2008 has ruled recently that testimony given by the accused in the course of administrative enquiries is not excludable in the criminal process.

  52. 52.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 1724/2007.

  53. 53.

    Hellenic Supreme Court, Judgment No. 105/1998, which finally dismissed the appeal in cassation, holding that the admonition had taken place in that case.

  54. 54.

    Hellenic Supreme Court Judgment, No. 1370/2007.

Bibliography

  • Androulakis, N. 1974. The problem of confessions during the preliminary investigation. Nomiko Vima Law Review 22: 1345–1356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Androulakis, N. 2007. Fundamental concepts of criminal procedure, 3rd ed. Athens: Law & Economy-P.N. Sakkoulas S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charalampakis, A. 1995. The Greek law on torture. Yperaspisi Law Review 5: 660–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalakouras, T. 1989. The Defendant’s silence in criminal procedure. Armenopoulos Law Review 72: 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalakouras, T. 1996. Illegal evidence. Poinika Chronika Law Review 46: 321–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitratos, N. 1992. Exclusionary rules in criminal procedure. Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitratos, N. 2001. The evolution of the regulation of exclusionary rules in Greek law of criminal procedure. Poinika Chronika Law Review 51: 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iliopoulous-Strangas, J. 2003. The use of illegally-obtained evidence and the right to defense – The evidentiary prohibition in Article 19 paragraph 3 of the revised [Greek] Constitution. Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karras, A. 2006. Criminal procedure law, 3rd ed. Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstantinides, A. 1995. Remarks on the regulation of evidence in the draft Code of Criminal Procedure. Poinika Chronika Law Review 45: 1179–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostaras, A. 1984. The admission of illegally gathered or illegally used evidence. Ephimeris Ellinon Nomikon Law Review 51: 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou-Gonatas, S. 1989. Illegal indirect evidence in criminal process. Poinika Chronika Law Review 39: 545–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinellis, D. 1986. Exclusionary rules in criminal procedure. Poinika Chronika Law Review 46: 865–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantafyllou, G. 1993a. The position of the co-defendant in the present evidentiary system. Poinika Chronika Law Review 43: 1076–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantafyllou, G. 1993b. Regulation and function of searches in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantafyllou, G. 2007. Exclusionary rules and the principle of proportionality. Poinika Chronika Law Review 57: 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsolka, O. 2002. The principle nemo tenetur se ipsum prodere/accusare in criminal procedure. Athens: Law & Economy-P.N. Sakkoulas S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzannetis, Aristomenis. 1995. Exclusionary rules and alternative legal collection of evidence. Poinika Chronika Law Review 45: 5–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzannetis, A. 1998. Punishable collection of evidence. Poinika Chronika Law Review 48: 105–109.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Athens, Patission 119, GR-112 51, Athens, Greece

    Georgios Triantafyllou

Authors
  1. Georgios Triantafyllou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgios Triantafyllou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Law, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard 3700, St. Louis, 63108, Missouri, USA

    Stephen C. Thaman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Triantafyllou, G. (2013). Greece: From Statutory Nullities to a Categorical Statutory Exclusionary Rule. In: Thaman, S. (eds) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation