The Criminal Chamber E of the Supreme Court of Greece ruled, as reported, in the case of Alexandros Giotopoulos that the legal conditions for granting conditional release were not met, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal Council of Piraeus for a new review.

The justices held that under the new Penal Code, this issue was “explicitly regulated for the first time, in order to fill a legislative gap,” which leads to the conclusion that actual serving of 25 years is required, even for crimes committed before July 1, 2019.

A key point of the decision is the interpretation of the provisions of the current Penal Code regarding inmates serving multiple life sentences.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the invocation of more favorable case law that had developed in recent years. As stated, the principle of the more lenient law “requires comparison between different legislative provisions” and not between a statutory provision and a judicial interpretation that had previously filled a legislative gap.

The justices also held that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal Council of Piraeus “did not contain the required specific and substantiated reasoning” for establishing the substantive conditions for conditional release.

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, factors such as consistent compliance with prison leave conditions, completion of university studies, and absence of recent disciplinary violations are not sufficient on their own to establish the required moral transformation of the inmate.

On the contrary, these elements “constitute outwardly good behavior rather than good conduct,” which, according to the Supreme Court, must reflect a substantial and internal acceptance of the rules of the legal order.

Regarding Giotopoulos’s studies, the Supreme Court acknowledges that his academic activity demonstrates “his commitment to remaining functional during his long-term incarceration.” However, this factor alone is not sufficient to prove rehabilitation or moral improvement.

At the same time, the justices also found the reasoning regarding the inmate’s public interventions to be insufficient, as it was not explained how specific letters or public statements are linked to a change in attitude toward the legal order or constitute evidence of genuine rehabilitation.

Finally, particular weight is given to the issue of remorse, noting that the case file does not show “his sincere repentance for the crimes he committed and his detachment from his criminal past,” while it is also pointed out that the ruling itself accepts that the convict “never accepted his acts, nor expressed remorse.” This element, according to the Supreme Court, may be considered an indication that the required moral transformation of Alexandros Giotopoulos has not been completed.