Judgment AP 56/2026 of the Seventh Criminal Chamber of Areios Pagos sheds light on a practical procedural issue: what may happen when a document containing personal data is read out at a hearing and the defendant or defence counsel does not raise a timely objection.

The judgment does not establish a general rule that "silence always amounts to consent". It does not legitimise unlawful access to records, nor does it permit unrestricted use of personal data in court. Its narrower holding is that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the absence of an objection when the document was read did not establish the particular ground of absolute procedural nullity invoked at a later stage.

The essential distinction: whether a document was obtained lawfully is one issue; whether, during the judicial proceedings, the objection required to preserve a specific procedural argument was raised in a timely and clear manner is another.

1. The exact identity of the judgment

This is AP 56/2026, Seventh Criminal Chamber. Identifying the chamber is essential because the same judgment number may appear in different branches of Areios Pagos case law. The judgment was decided on 25 September 2025 and published on 19 January 2026.

The case concerned the use and reading of a document containing personal data in criminal proceedings. The court record showed that no objection had been raised when the document was read and that no corresponding argument had been preserved in the manner in which it was later advanced in the cassation proceedings. The defendant had also provided explanations in relation to the same document.

More specifically, the document was an extract from the minutes of a lyceum teachers' council concerning an earlier school incident, the disciplinary sanction and the classification of the defendant's conduct. Areios Pagos accepted that this information constituted personal data relating to his private and social life and was contained in a structured file maintained by the school.

Areios Pagos examined the procedural consequence of that conduct. It did not make a general ruling on every document containing personal data, nor did it answer in the abstract whether any acquisition of such a document complied with the GDPR or national law.

2. Two different assessments that must not be confused

When a document containing personal data is introduced in legal proceedings, at least two levels of assessment must be kept separate:

  1. The lawfulness of acquisition and processing. Who obtained the document, from which filing system, in what capacity, for what purpose and on what legal basis? Was there unlawful access, interception, a breach of confidentiality or excessive disclosure?
  2. Its procedural use. When was it produced, was its reading permitted or required, was an objection raised, was that objection entered in the record, and what specific nullity or violation is being alleged?

The fact that a court does not find an absolute procedural nullity does not automatically mean that the original collection was lawful. Conversely, doubts about the provenance of a document are not, in themselves, sufficient to preserve every procedural argument if it is not raised in the manner and within the time required by the applicable procedure.

3. What Areios Pagos held

The judgment attached weight to a combination of specific circumstances: the document was read at the hearing; no objection by the defendant, who was present or duly represented, was recorded; no corresponding ground had been raised at the preceding procedural stage; and the defendant himself had provided explanations about its contents.

In that context, the court accepted that the conduct could be assessed as implicit acceptance of the document's procedural use and that the specific absolute procedural nullity had not arisen. Its reasoning was also linked to the rules governing the reading of records and documents in appellate criminal proceedings.

The sound conclusion is a narrow one: depending on the applicable procedure, the failure to make a timely objection and have it recorded may prevent a party from subsequently invoking a specific ground of nullity. The judgment does not establish that every silence cures every illegality or that all objections are automatically lost.

4. What AP 56/2026 did not decide

The judgment does not grant permission for:

  • unlawful access to school, medical, employment, banking or other records,
  • interception of communications or the compromise of accounts and devices,
  • copying data without a lawful basis merely because it might prove useful in future litigation,
  • public posting or broad disclosure of personal data,
  • circumventing the principles of necessity, proportionality and data minimisation.

The "implicit consent" referred to in the court's reasoning concerns the assessment of conduct within the specific criminal proceedings. It must not be equated, without further examination, with consent under the GDPR, nor should it be treated as retroactively curing a potentially unlawful act of collection.

5. Why the timing of an objection matters

Procedural rules often require objections to be raised when the disputed item is introduced into the proceedings. This enables the court to examine its provenance, relevance and use immediately, while also allowing the other party to respond.

If an objection is raised for the first time after the evidentiary proceedings have concluded, it may be more difficult to establish exactly what was disputed and on what basis. At the cassation stage, Areios Pagos reviews specific errors of law and procedure; it does not generally rehear the evidence.

For that reason, a vague statement that "the document contains personal data" is not sufficient. The objection should identify the data concerned, how they were obtained, which provision was infringed, the procedural consequence sought and where the objection was entered in the record.

6. Reading a document does not amount to evidentiary certainty

Even when a document is read, this does not mean that the court must accept every statement in it as true. Authenticity, completeness, relevance, temporal proximity and evidentiary weight are separate matters for assessment.

A document may have been lawfully read but still be incomplete, outdated, fragmentary or irrelevant to the decisive fact. It may also require technical verification, comparison with the original or examination of the person who drew it up. An objection to the lawfulness of its use and a substantive challenge to its reliability are distinct lines of defence and often need to be pursued in parallel.

7. Practical checklist for a document containing personal data

  • Provide defence counsel with the complete document and all available information about its provenance.
  • Check who obtained it, from which filing system, and under what lawful authority or right of access.
  • Distinguish unlawful acquisition from unlawful disclosure, irrelevance and lack of authenticity.
  • Raise the objection before or during the reading, in accordance with defence counsel's procedural advice.
  • Ask for the objection, its legal basis and the court's ruling to be entered in the record.
  • Consider in good time whether the issue must be preserved as a ground of appeal or in another legal remedy.
  • Challenge accuracy and evidentiary weight separately, even if the document is read.
  • Do not attempt fresh unlawful access or public dissemination in order to strengthen your argument.

8. Frequently asked questions

Is every document containing personal data now admissible in a criminal court?

No. The lawfulness of acquisition, the basis for processing, proportionality and the procedural rules remain subject to examination. The judgment does not establish a general freedom to use personal data.

Does silence always amount to consent?

No. In this particular case, it was assessed together with the defendant's presence or representation, the reading of the document, the absence of an earlier argument and the explanations that had been provided. The assessment depends on the record of each trial.

Does an objection automatically exclude the document?

No. It does, however, allow the court to examine the specific issue in a timely manner. The objection should state which act is considered unlawful, which data it concerns and what procedural consequence is sought.

Can the objection be raised for the first time in cassation proceedings?

AP 56/2026 highlights the serious risk created by such a delay. The appropriate course depends on the case file, but the sound practice is to raise the objection promptly and ensure that it is clearly entered in the record.

If the document is read, does it automatically prove what it states?

No. Reading is distinct from authenticity, accuracy, relevance and evidentiary weight. Each of these matters may be challenged through separate arguments.

May I collect data unlawfully because I need them as evidence?

No. The usefulness of an item in legal proceedings does not, in itself, create a right to access, copy or disclose it unlawfully. Criminal, civil and administrative consequences may arise.

9. Official sources

Legal update: The official sources were checked on 30 August 2026. This article provides general information and is not a substitute for individual advice from a lawyer who has reviewed the case file, the court record, the provenance of the document and the applicable time limits.