The parliamentary group of New Democracy is requesting the formation of a special preliminary investigation committee to examine the possible commission by former Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, Kostas Karamanlis, of the offense of breach of duty as a misdemeanor. The proposal is expected to be submitted to the Plenary of the Hellenic Parliament in the coming hours.

The text of the New Democracy (“blue”) parliamentary group, as presented by protothema.gr, outlines the main findings included in the voluminous case file compiled by the appellate judge-investigator Sotiris Bakaimis regarding the Tempi case. It concludes with the proposal to establish a “Special Parliamentary Committee” in accordance with Article 86, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, to investigate the possible commission by Konstantinos Karamanlis, son of Achilleas, of the offense of breach of duty. This refers specifically to the period from September 2021 until February 28, 2023, during which he allegedly violated Article 40, paragraph 3 of Law 4974/2022, intending to cause financial damage to the public company Hellenic Railways Organization (OSE S.A.) through willful omission:

a. to establish an adequate funding framework for the railway sector;

b. to ensure the provision of public resources to OSE necessary for the maintenance, repair, expansion, and renovation of the railway network, and the proper drafting of the budget based on a multi-year Strategic Railway Investment Program funded by co-financed or national Public Investment Programs or the Recovery and Resilience Fund — also for staffing OSE S.A. with the personnel necessary for its proper functioning.

As it appears, the proposal for the preliminary investigation focuses solely on Mr. Karamanlis’s actions from September 2021 — when two incriminating letters regarding OSE’s underfunding and understaffing were forwarded to him — up to February 28, 2023, the day of the tragic railway accident. As for Christos Spirtzis, Minister of Infrastructure and Transport under the SYRIZA government, it is noted that there are indications of criminal offenses; however, no referral is sought due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

The main points of New Democracy’s reasoning include:

The accused directors fully documented that the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s oversight of OSE S.A. and ERGOSE S.A. is purely administrative and does not extend to safety matters, which fall under the Railway Regulatory Authority (RAS). Additionally, OSE S.A. is legally responsible for the railway network, operating as an autonomous legal entity. To prove this, it was pointed out that even after the Tempi accident, any safety-enhancing changes were made by OSE, not the then-minister. It was also stated that following observations in ministry service documents regarding the need for additional funding and staffing, the political leadership at the time took steps to increase both funding and staff, by announcing permanent positions and engaging service providers. Notably, before the Tempi tragedy, both RAS and the European Union Agency for Railways had issued safety certificates for OSE (as infrastructure manager) and Hellenic Train. The directors emphatically testified that while installing safety systems can reduce accident likelihood, the railway is not inherently unsafe without them, provided the General Traffic Regulation is followed — which has legal force equivalent to the Highway Code.

Another crucial point is the following: The indictment against the two ministry directors includes (paragraph 25) that they failed to take required actions (e.g., recommendations) toward the Minister to allow him to take further measures. Similarly, the President of RAS (pages 66–67 of the indictment) is noted to have not recommended, as she should have, national rule-making or other measures to the Minister.

While not taking a stance on these accusations, it is observed that the investigating judge makes a different legal assessment of the omissions by the two directors and the RAS president than that regarding the responsible ministers. Since the required recommendations were not made to the Minister, as per the investigating judge, it is evident that the Minister cannot bear criminal responsibility.

It is, after all, a fundamental principle of criminal law, as well as of the rule of law in general, that criminal responsibility is personal and cannot be transferred from superiors to subordinates or vice versa. The existence of such responsibility, especially for omissions, is assessed based on the duties and fault of each individual. General organizational or institutional responsibility is distinct from the responsibility of those directly managing a specific sector of social activity.

New Democracy (ND) has consistently distinguished between political and criminal responsibility, and for this reason, in similar cases of tragic disasters (Samina, Mati, Mandra), which occurred while it was in opposition, it never sought the criminal prosecution of ministers of the respective governments, even though case files had been forwarded to Parliament. Notably, in the case of Mati, the judiciary itself stated that if the 112 emergency system had operated, some of the tragedy’s victims could have been saved. It is worth noting that in the Samina case, which in a way resembles the crimes under investigation in the Tempi file, ND, acting responsibly, merely requested an investigative committee, which was rejected by the then PASOK government. Unfortunately, the opposition parties now display a different face, demonstrating an unprecedented intention to instrumentalize a tragedy and embracing unfounded conspiracy theories—now entirely collapsing—in pursuit of petty political gains.

Systemic issues and matters of ministers’ administrative oversight alone should not be combined with the imputation of criminal, especially felony-level, offenses to them.

If the non-implementation of additional safety systems gave rise to criminal liability for ministers, then the Ministers of Infrastructure would have to be held criminally accountable on a daily basis for accidents occurring on unfinished national highways (e.g., Patra-Pyrgos, VOAK). Similarly, Ministers of Health would have to face prosecution for the ongoing shortages of doctors or emergency medical responders, or for the insufficient technical infrastructure of the healthcare system, etc.

At this point, however, it becomes necessary to make a genuine distinction between political and criminal responsibility. The only offense that could be connected to the exercise of ministerial duties—when there is no financial mismanagement, corruption, or commission of crimes such as breach of trust or bribery—is that of breach of duty under Article 259 of the Penal Code. Based on that provision, a minister’s possible liability can be assessed in its true criminal dimension—whether or not they violated their exclusive duties.

It should be noted, in relation to the former Minister Mr. Christos Spirtzis, that any ministerial offense he may have committed cannot be investigated due to the expiration of the limitation period under Article 86(3) of the Constitution, as it stood prior to its amendment during the 2019 constitutional revision. Any omissions attributed to him occurred before this amendment and, therefore, the stricter provisions of the current Article 86 cannot be retroactively applied. Already at the time of its entry into force, the punishability had lapsed. However, upon reviewing the case file, his serious substantive responsibility for delaying the completion of Contract 717/14 becomes evident.

ND, remaining true to its position not to obstruct justice and to allow cases that are mature from the judiciary to swiftly reach their natural judge—even though it believes that the evidence for any criminal liability against Mr. Karamanlis is not strong—considers that it can constitute the indications required by law for the establishment of a special parliamentary committee to conduct a preliminary investigation.”
“No Indications of Intent or Negligence Regarding Disruption of Transportation Safety”

At the same time, the government majority maintains that the full body of evidence in the case file does not show that the political leadership of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport during the investigated period had either intent or negligence regarding the alleged disruption of safety in rail transport or concerning the deaths or injuries of the passengers of the commercial and passenger trains.

To substantiate the rejection of the offense of disrupting transportation safety, it is noted that:

“RAS (the Regulatory Authority for Railways), as the National Railway Safety Authority—i.e., the national body responsible for railway safety (Article 55(7) of Law 4632/2019), and as the Railway Transport Safety Authority under Article 28(23-25) of Law 3891/2010—issued and granted to OSE S.A.: (a) on 20/10/2021, a Safety Certificate without any restriction or observation, valid until 03/10/2026, certifying that RAS accepted the safety management system within the EU in accordance with Directive 2016/798 and the applicable national legislation, and (b) on 31/01/2023, an ECM (Entity in Charge of Maintenance) certificate to OSE as the Infrastructure Manager, under Law 4632/2019 and Regulation (EU) 779/2019.

Therefore, the company OSE S.A., as the manager of railway infrastructure and responsible for its maintenance, was at the time of the accident fully certified on safety issues by the competent authority, in line with national and EU law. It is also noted that RAS is by law an independent authority which ‘enjoys functional independence, administrative and financial autonomy, and is not subject to control by government bodies or any other administrative authority,’ according to Article 22(2) of Law 3891/2010.

An additional element, which by the majority is seen as confirmation that the political leadership does not bear responsibility for the disruption of railway safety, is that “on 06/02/2023, the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) issued and granted HELLENIC TRAIN a Single Safety Certificate with number EU1020230029, valid for five years. This certificate certified the railway undertaking’s safety management system, as well as the measures it had taken to meet the specific safety requirements for operating the railway network, in accordance with EU Directive 2016/798 and applicable national law. The certificate issued by ERA was valid for both passenger and freight transport. That is, on the day the accident occurred, the companies OSE S.A. and Hellenic Train met, according to the competent national and European authorities, all safety conditions for the journey during which the collision occurred.”
The Memos and Testimonies of Two Senior Officials of the Ministry of Infrastructure

The proposal of New Democracy (ND) focuses on the written statements and testimonies of two senior officials from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, noting that “certain issues arise that require further investigation and evaluation from a criminal perspective. Specifically, from reading the written statements of the two employees, their examination reports by the Investigating Judge, and the documents they submitted, it emerges that in September 2021 the Directorate of Railway Transport (Department of Railway and Combined Transport) prepared and submitted two briefing memos to the Ministry’s political leadership. These were memo numbers Φ.15.7/242749/10-9-2021 and Φ10/254143/21-9-2021, which raised long-standing issues of inadequate funding and staffing of OSE S.A.”

The authors of the proposal state:

“With these memos, the aforementioned Directorate described the chronic problems of underfunding and understaffing of OSE S.A., specifically requesting additional funding for OSE and coordination of necessary actions to hire 290 individuals of various specialties.”

However, they emphasize:

“From the evidence in the criminal case file related to the Tempi accident, which was attached to the forwarding document of the Investigating Judge of Larissa to the Hellenic Parliament, it is not clear what actions the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, Mr. Karamanlis—who was among the recipients of the two memos—took to address the issues raised, namely the need to increase staffing and funding for OSE S.A. Although the two employees refer to ministry efforts to secure additional funding and staffing for OSE, no further evidence is available in the case file to draw definitive conclusions about these actions. As a result, it cannot be determined whether Mr. Karamanlis lawfully fulfilled his duties as Minister, nor whether any potential breach was willful and aimed at depriving OSE S.A. of resources and personnel. Therefore, to fully clarify the case, it is necessary to further investigate any indications of negligent performance of Mr. Konstantinos Karamanlis’s ministerial duties raised by these memos. If the indications meet the legal threshold, criminal proceedings should be initiated against him for the misdemeanor of breach of duty against OSE S.A., as described further below.”
What New Democracy Says

New Democracy (ND), staying consistent with its position of not obstructing justice, considers that the elements in the case file regarding the former Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, Mr. Kostas Karamanlis, though not strong enough to establish criminal liability, may nonetheless constitute the indications required by law for the establishment of a Special Preliminary Investigation Committee into the alleged breach of duty.

This investigation will focus, based on the information urgently forwarded by the Investigating Judge to Parliament, on:

– The written statements and testimonies of the two senior officials from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport

– Mr. Karamanlis’s actions (between September 2021 and February 2023) to ensure an adequate framework for railway sector funding and staffing at OSE.

From reviewing the full case file and evidence submitted to Parliament, there is no indication that the political leadership of the Ministry either pursued or tolerated any disruption of the safety of fixed-track transport systems (Article 291 of the Penal Code), as claimed by PASOK.

Regarding Christos Spirtzis, ND acknowledges his responsibility for delaying the completion of contract 717, but notes that any ministerial offense is statute-barred and cannot be investigated.

In its proposal, ND concludes that unlike the opposition parties—which in their findings emphasized political exploitation of the Tempi tragedy rather than seeking truth and justice—it based its stance solely on the case file, rejecting the micro-political tactics of PASOK and others who adopted the Polakis doctrine of “putting people in jail.”

ND’s Key Arguments Based on the Case File:

1. Ministry oversight over OSE and ERGOSE is administrative, not related to safety matters, which are under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority for Railways (RAS), an independent authority.

2. OSE is a legal entity (S.A.) with administrative and financial autonomy, responsible for infrastructure and safety.

3. The indictment against the two Ministry Directors includes failure to make necessary recommendations to the Minister. A similar claim appears in the indictment against the RAS president.

4. Since the required recommendations were not made to the Minister, he cannot be held criminally liable.

5. A clear distinction must be maintained between political and criminal liability.

6. If failure to implement additional safety systems gave rise to criminal liability for ministers, then all Infrastructure Ministers would face charges for accidents on unfinished highways (e.g., Pyrgos–Patras, BOAK).

7. A full review of the case file reveals no evidence that the Ministry’s leadership during the period in question took actions dangerous to railway safety, as required by Article 291 of the Penal Code.

8. Most importantly: On the day of the accident, OSE and Hellenic Train met all safety requirements, according to national and European authorities.

9. Since the Ministry only has administrative authority over safety matters, ND proposes a Preliminary Investigation Committee for Karamanlis to explore the underfunding and understaffing issues at OSE raised by the two senior officials.

10. From the Tempi accident case file, it is unclear what actions Minister Karamanlis took regarding additional funding and staffing for OSE. Therefore, further investigation is warranted, although the file lacks sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions.