Drousiotis surveillance appeal formally communicated to European court

The European court of human rights (Echr) formally appealed against Cyprus on Friday regarding the allegations of unlawful surveillance made by investigative journalist, Makarios Drousiotis.

According to a court document, the application concerns alleged violations of Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the European convention on human rights, covering the right to private life and freedom of expression.

The court has invited both parties to respond to a series of questions addressing the legality, necessity and proportionality of any interference with the journalist’s rights.

In his submission, Drousiotis alleges that he was targeted by unlawful surveillance using advanced spyware, claiming interference with his mobile phones, computers, cloud accounts and home security systems, alongside incidents of physical monitoring.

He says sensitive personal data and material relating to journalistic sources were accessed without his knowledge or consent.

The application describes the alleged conduct as “a grave intrusion into private life and professional confidentiality”.

The court is asking whether any interference was “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society”, and whether the applicant had effective domestic channels available to challenge the alleged violations.

The case follows years of public claims by Drousiotis that he was subjected to surveillance while investigating corruption involving political and economic elites, detailed in him eponymous book, ‘Mafia State’.

He has previously said the monitoring began in 2018, during his time as an assistant to former EU commissioner Christos Stylianides, and coincided with research into links between senior Cypriot figures and Russian business interests.

International concern over the handling of his allegations has been voiced by press freedom organisations, including Reporters Without Borders, which in a joint letter to Cypriot authorities described the claims as “deeply troubling” and called for a thorough investigation.

“Intimidation and surreptitious surveillance of investigative reporters undermine their watchdog role and the protection of sources,” the organisations said.

The government has consistently denied carrying out unlawful surveillance and have said any lawful monitoring is subject to “strict constitutional safeguards”.

Drousiotis, however, maintains that domestic investigations were ineffective, alleging delays, loss of evidence and failures to pursue key forensic leads.