- The “defense” of the Interior Minister, N. Kerameos, before the Data Protection Authority was officially based on leaks from the Prime Minister’s trusted aide through non-papers to the media.
- The key role of Menios Koromilas and the government’s claims of hardly knowing him, despite his high-profile responsibilities.
- Who is the true “courier” of the files and who did Maximos Mansion point to as the scapegoat?
G. Mylonakis allegedly advised Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, a candidate for the European Parliament and central figure in the case, to shift the blame onto New Democracy’s mechanisms and officials. - The investigation by Data Journalists sheds light on all the murky aspects of this highly controversial affair, for which the report from the Data Protection Authority is expected in the first 10 days of October.
- The Big Questions: How the decision will determine whether the “investigations” of the Prime Minister’s office led to true or false conclusions, and whether the narrative that New Democracy’s officials were to blame “held up.”
Investigation by Data Journalists
Perhaps not many have noticed, but there are different laws regarding personal data for the European elections and the national elections. In the former case, the law expresses reservations about emails and phone numbers, but clearly allows the use of full residential addresses. In the latter case, there is a strict prohibition on emails, phone numbers, and addresses.
The leak narrative, crafted by Deputy Prime Minister Giorgos Mylonakis and presented to Kyriakos Mitsotakis, had a specific goal. From the first moment the email scandal erupted in early March 2024, the goal was to work in favor of former Interior Minister Niki Kerameos – who was initially eyeing a position as Commissioner, banking on a success story with the vote-by-mail initiative in the European elections – and to “burn” the party by undermining the credibility of New Democracy’s General Secretary, Giannis Smyrlis.

This plan could, on the one hand, reduce Kerameos’s responsibilities as Minister of the Interior (from June 2023 to June 2024), while at the same time dealing a blow to Pavlos Marinakis, who was New Democracy’s secretary during the critical period of the email leaks and is now the government’s spokesman and its informal “rival” in northern Athens.
This is how the narrative of the leak and the supposed “security gaps” on the Interior Ministry website was constructed. A warning was even posted on the ministry’s official website, under the pretext of “protecting” the public from possible interception by malicious actors. Data Journalists investigated this high-profile and murky case of personal data, which is still under investigation.
In the initial reports when the case came to light and on social media, a scenario emerged suggesting the interception and leakage of personal data of overseas voters. Initially, the responsibility was attributed to Nikos Theodoropoulos, the Secretary for Greeks Abroad. A few days later, in April 2024, news of a break-in at the Elections Directorate also surfaced, apparently to create an impression. While it was initially thought that the break-in was related to the case, it was eventually determined that it was not.
TWO RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS ON THE BREAK-IN CASE::
G. Mylonakis was the one who “advised” the candidate for the European Parliament and central figure in the case, Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, to shift the blame to the mechanisms and officials of New Democracy. The aim was to make it appear that the file containing personal data had been extracted in June 2023, thus “washing” Niki Kerameos of her responsibility. In addition, the aim was to place Pavlos Marinakis and Giannis Smyrlis at the center of the controversy. This narrative was easy to construct, since Giannis Smyrlis had already been targeted in the wiretapping case, making the story of the interception of personal data by the Ministry of Interior seem more “coherent”.
In the latest decision of the Data Protection Authority (August 26, 2024), which granted another extension in the case, it was revealed how Menios Koromilas, as an official of New Democracy, was ultimately the “courier” who knew the truth. Koromilas is New Democracy’s organizational secretary for local government and in charge of crisis management. This new twist, resulting from the authority’s decision, has not been made public.
THE AUTHORITY’S DECISION::
- https://www.dpa.gr/sites/default/files/2024-09/22_2024%20anonym.pdf
The decision mentions an investigation to be conducted by the Maximos Mansion. However, nowhere in the investigation was the name and position of the real bearer of the file from the Ministry of Interior, Menios Koromilas, mentioned, as he later confessed before the Data Protection Authority. Specifically, in Decision No. 2242 of the Data Protection Authority, published on August 26, 2024, page 8, Menios Koromilas admits that he was the one who received the file from a person who extracted it from the Ministry of Interior.
According to the decision:
“Aristodimos (Menios) Koromilas, both through his representatives during the hearing and with his memorandum (…), states that during the period from January to June 2023, he collaborated with the then Secretary General of the Ministry of Interior, Mr. Michalis Stavrianoudakis, from whom, he claims, he received a telephone call on June 23, 2023, and during this call he was asked to forward to Mr. Theodoropoulos a file that an associate would send him via WhatsApp, and that he forwarded to Mr. Theodoropoulos the file that was sent to him from an unknown number, without knowing its content or possible use, and without it being stored on his computer or in his email address at New Democracy. He also claims that he does not have the controversial file because he has changed his mobile device in the meantime, and that due to his position in the party he has never sought access to electoral lists or personal data of citizens, nor has his responsibility had anything to do with the issue of Greeks abroad, and he requests that the case concerning him be archived”.
Moreover, it has not been established from whom Mr. Koromilas received the file. In fact, in his testimony to the DPA, he completely conceals the anonymity of this specific person, stating that he received the file from an unknown number that he cannot disclose because he has changed devices. This raises the question as to why Koromilas’ testimony did not gain any traction in the public sphere, but the leadership of the Ministry of Interior allowed theories of wiretapping to develop around the case. How did the Prime Minister allow G. Mylonakis to spread such an unfounded story?

Another critical question is who extracted the file from the Ministry of the Interior and under what authority. How many times in total was this particular file extracted from the Ministry’s system and where did all these files end up?
Furthermore, Mr. Koromilas informed the DPA that he resigned from his position as Organizational Secretary for Local Government and Crisis Management of New Democracy on June 20, 2024, citing reasons of sensitivity – apparently related to the case. This resignation did not receive much attention.
In particular, when asked about Mr. Koromilas’ position by the newspaper Documento on September 17, 2024, government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis curiously avoided directly addressing the details of the resignation. In the previous briefing, he even claimed that he could not recall whether Mr. Koromilas held an official position. He also did not respond to questions about whether the investigation was being conducted by Deputy Prime Minister Giorgos Mylonakis.
According to media reports, Mr. Koromilas was a member of the Maximos Mansion Election Task Force. Does this mean that he handled sensitive voter lists for the entire country? And was this the case for both the national and European elections?
ΙNDICATIVE REPORT:
On what evidence did Mr. Koromilas base his testimony? How could he have known the truth about the case even before it was investigated by the appropriate independent authority? Especially when Maximos Mansion has consistently maintained that Koromilas had no involvement in the matter, even questioning his role within the party. Why does Maximos Mansion insist that its initial investigation was correct, when the facts presented in DPA Decision 2242 suggest that it was wrong? Why was Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou instructed by Maximos Mansion to specifically name Mr. Theodoropoulos?
Even in the hypothetical scenario that the investigation by Maximos Mansion was entirely accurate, as claimed by Pavlos Marinakis on September 4, 2024, why was the involvement and role of Koromilas, as revealed in the testimonies to the competent authority, kept secret?
The questions continue to multiply:
- Why did the government blatantly ignore the Data Protection Authority when it requested Maximos Mansion’s findings on the Asimakopoulou case?
- How does the Ministry of Interior use as a defense the media reports on the investigation that were distributed through non-papers of the Maximos Mansion?
- Does the Prime Minister know that G. Mylonakis, representing the Parliament, i.e. the Legislative Branch, has led the Government, i.e. the Executive Branch, to issue findings on the investigation through media leaks, thereby implicitly attempting to influence the Judiciary?
- Why did the investigation refer to the interception or leak of an email file, when the file contained more data and was, according to the agency, extracted and sent in different directions several times in 2023 by officials of the Ministry of the Interior? Why were these officials not named?
- Who suggested Nikos Theodoropoulos as a scapegoat? Who led the Maximos Mansion investigation that pointed to Nikos Theodoropoulos as the “courier” and New Democracy as responsible?
- Why does Maximos Mansion repeatedly claim that it had nothing to do with the case?
- Why does Maximos Mansion insist that Mylonakis’ initial investigation was correct, when the facts presented in Decision 2242 of the Data Protection Authority suggest otherwise? Why was Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou instructed by Maximos Mansion to name New Democracy and target its officials?
- Why is Maximos Mansion attempting to keep this issue under wraps, trying to ensure that its manipulative handling of the case does not come to light in the media?
- What is the true role of Mr. Koromilas? Why has his identity and role in this matter been concealed by Maximos Mansion? What is his relationship with the Ministry of Interior and who are his contacts there?
- Why is Mr. Koromilas being protected, even though he admits his actions as a courier? Is his family connection to a powerful Metropolitan of the Church a factor in this protection?
According to the Privacy Commissioner’s decision of May 27, 2024:
The Authority’s decision and all the revelations went under the radar of most of the media.
The Authority’s announcement clearly states that the Ministry of the Interior was informed by the media. It is also noteworthy that when the Authority asked the officials of the Ministry what they knew about the “leak”, they stated that they were informed by the media and the office of the then Minister Kerameos.
FULL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY ON MAY 27, 2024:
It should be noted that on April 4, 2024, the Data Protection Authority mentioned that it never received the answers it requested from Maximos Mansion, with the General Secretariat of the Prime Minister not practically responding to the Authority’s request to deliver the results of the investigation of Maximos Mansion, specifically of G. Mylonakis.
Timeline of the case
Following the 2019 national elections, Law N.4648/2019 was approved by Parliament on December 16 by a large majority of 288 votes. This law facilitated the exercise of the right to vote by voters residing abroad on the day of the national elections.
ΤΟ ΦΕΚ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΜΑΧΟ ΝΟΜΟ:
This special law imposed numerous conditions and considerable bureaucracy on anyone who wished to register on the electoral rolls for overseas voters.
As a result, less than 30,000 Greek citizens registered to vote in the 2023 national elections, despite considerable efforts and a multi-million euro advertising campaign.
In this law, Article 3 explains that the overseas voters’ lists contain 11 columns of personal data, including the full home address, emails and phone numbers of overseas voters. With regard to emails and telephone numbers, there is a legal reservation regarding their disclosure to political parties, but no explicit exception. The reason for choosing a reservation rather than an exception remains unclear, as does the rationale for providing the full residential addresses of overseas voters.
Following the conclusion of the 2023 National Elections, amendments to Law N.4648/2019 were passed by 208 deputies to facilitate the participation of voters residing abroad by lifting restrictions in the law and eliminating bureaucracy.
Specifically, articles 2 and 4 were amended.
(Article 1: Lifting of restrictions on registration in special electoral rolls for overseas voters – Amendment of Articles 2 and 4 of Law N.4648/2019):
- http://www.opengov.gr/ypes/?p=8812
- https://www.cnn.gr/politiki/story/374986/psifistike-me-evreia-pleiopsifia-i-psifos-ton-apodimon
The controversial Article 3, regarding the content of the electoral lists provided to political parties, remained unchanged. The Minister of the Interior at the time was Niki Kerameos.
In November, the government announced its intention to introduce postal voting for the upcoming European elections, which would require a majority of 151 votes instead of 200 as in national elections.
After two months of debate, on January 24, 2024, the law allowing for postal voting inside and outside Greece for the European elections was passed with 158 votes in favor. However, an amendment to introduce postal voting for national elections was rejected.
RELEVANT PUBLICATION:Α:
Notable legislative differences
In Article 7, regarding the content of the electoral rolls for overseas voters, there were significant differences. Contrary to what the government passed in July 2023, which included a proposal by Interior Minister Niki Kerameos, there was a specific exception for emails, phone numbers, and full addresses.
The contradiction lies in the fact that Niki Kerameos had previously advocated for a more flexible law regarding the electoral rolls for the national elections (July 2023), while proposing stricter regulations for the European elections, explicitly exempting these specific data from being provided to political parties. Why did this happen? What was the fundamental reason for Ms. Kerameos’ desire for a more lenient framework for expatriate electoral rolls during national elections?
Subsequently, on March 1, 2024, New Democracy MEP Anna Michel Asimakopoulou sent out an informative newsletter to Greeks living abroad, just moments after Ms. Kerameos, through the Ministry of Interior, informed overseas voters that the postal voting platform had been opened for registration ahead of the upcoming European elections.
Between March 1 and 3, there was a significant online uproar regarding the personal data of voters, and the Ministry of Interior, through Secretary General Ath. Balermpas that the Ministry does not provide emails according to the existing legislation, while Ms. Kerameos refrained from intervening and allowed the Secretary General to address the matter.
STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR::
On March 4, an investigation was launched by the Hellenic Data Protection Authority and the Athens Prosecutor’s Office.
On the same day, the Ministry apparently restored the old website of the Ministry of Interior, apodimoi.gov.gr, with the following message:
The government’s strategy seemed to focus on constructing a narrative of data interception and leakage, especially when the Ministry of Interior’s platform apodimoi.gov.gr displayed a privacy error, warning users that “your connection is not private” and that “some malicious actors may try to steal your information.” Ministry sources clarified the situation, aiming to build a narrative to deflect responsibility from Interior Ministry officials.
RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
- https://www.avgi.gr/politiki/479045_paradehetai-problima-me-tin-platforma-apodimoigovgr
- https://www.ypes.gr/diefkriniseis-g-g-athanasiou-balerba-epi-anakrivon-anaforon-gia-ti-leitourgia-tis-platformas-tis-epistolikis-psifou/
According to reports, this narrative was created to deflect significant responsibility from the government and Ministry of Interior officials. This included both the legal “loopholes” created by the ambiguous “proviso” allowing for flexible interpretation of the law, and the possible unauthorized transfer of personal data to political parties such as New Democracy.
In essence, the government appears to have deliberately created a scenario suggesting data interception and then displayed a government website warning users of potential data theft – an act seen as an attempt to shield the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Interior from accountability for their actions and omissions.
The idea reportedly came from George Mylonakis, the then Secretary-General of Parliament, who had a close friendship with Minister Kerameos’ husband, stemming from their joint tenure on the Competition Committee. Mylonakis is said to have guided the Prime Minister in this matter from the beginning of March and to have been in contact with Mrs. Asimakopoulou since the morning of March 2, giving her strategic instructions.
At the same time, Maria Spiraki, as a member of the European Parliament, tried to raise the issue and highlight the mistakes made by Anna Michel Asimakopoulou in order to put pressure on the Prime Minister. This tactic appeared to be effective, as Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis agreed to reinstate Maria Spiraki on New Democracy’s list of candidates for the European Parliament during the EPP Congress in Bucharest on March 7-8, hoping that this would prevent further discussion of the e-mail case.
During this period, the then director of the prime minister’s press office did not help, instead encouraging pro-government media to promote the wiretapping narrative while undermining Asimakopoulou, whom he would face in the upcoming European elections for a seat in the European Parliament.
In addition, government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis stated that New Democracy never had access to the specific data, likely fearing a backlash from the leak.
MARINAKIS’ STATEMENT AND PUBLICATIONS:
- https://www.iefimerida.gr/politiki/anna-misel-asimakopoyloy-paraskinio-apopompis
- https://www.liberal.gr/politiki/ypothesi-asimakopoyloy-i-ereyna-toy-maximoy-ta-minymata-kai-paraskinio
- https://www.news247.gr/politiki/ipothesi-asimakopoulou-ta-erotimata-kai-to-damage-control-tou-maximou/
The report of the Data Protection Authority is expected in the first ten days of October and will determine the accuracy of the investigations conducted by the Maximos Mansion regarding a data leak. This decision will clarify the validity of media reports implicating a single individual in the alleged interception and leakage of data, especially since the Ministry of Interior was already fined €400,000 by the authority in May 2024 for extracting data files ten times since June 8, 2023. The results could significantly reshape the narrative surrounding this case and reveal whether the government’s claims were justified or an attempt to evade accountability for its actions.
Discussion about this post