The political dynamics surrounding the Tempi case are intensifying, with a heated debate emerging between the ruling majority and opposition following New Democracy’s recent proposal to form a preliminary investigation committee focused on former Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, Kostas Ach. Karamanlis.
Context and Legal Framework
The ruling majority’s initiative seeks to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Karamanlis breached his duties between September 2021—when two incriminating letters regarding underfunding and understaffing at OSE were submitted—and February 28, 2023, the date of the tragic Tempi train crash. The central concern involves potential criminal responsibility for negligence, particularly regarding alleged omissions during this timeframe that may have contributed to the disaster.
In contrast, former Minister Christos Spirtzis, who served under the SYRIZA government, acknowledges signs of potential criminal misconduct but argues that the statute of limitations has lapsed, hindering any further inquiry. Additionally, PASOK has introduced its own proposal, aiming to investigate broader allegations involving not only Karamanlis but also former deputy ministers like Kefalogiannis, Karagiannis, Papadopoulos, and others, all concerning threats to public transport safety—highlighting the intricate political and legal factors involved.
Details of the ND Proposal
According to protothema.gr, New Democracy’s legal team’s proposal is grounded in a comprehensive case file compiled by investigating magistrate Sotiris Bakaimi. It suggests the establishment of a “Special Parliamentary Committee” under Article 86(3) of the Constitution to examine any potential breaches of duty by Karamanlis. The primary aim is to ascertain whether he neglected responsibilities related to funding and staffing deficits at OSE, which allegedly led to financial losses and safety compromises.
The proposal outlines specific points, including:
- The administrative oversight role of the Ministry, which clarifies that safety oversight is managed by the independent Railway Regulatory Authority (RRA).
- The independent status of OSE as a legal entity responsible for infrastructure management and safety adherence.
- The lack of definitive recommendations or mandated actions from the ministry, suggesting limited criminal liability for the minister.
- A clear distinction between civil and criminal liability, emphasizing that negligence in funding and staffing does not inherently equate to criminal behavior.
- A rebuttal to claims that ministers can be criminally liable for safety failures on incomplete highways, underscoring the unique nature of railway safety regulations.
- The proposal asserts that, according to the case file, there is no evidence of conduct endangering safety as outlined by Article 291 of the Criminal Code.
- Importantly, it points out that both OSE and Hellenic Train met all safety requirements on the day of the accident according to national and European standards.
The essence of New Democracy’s argument is that the investigation should prioritize systemic issues—specifically underfunding and understaffing raised by ministry officials—rather than focus on individual criminal acts by Karamanlis. The proposal concludes with a call to establish a parliamentary committee to investigate these administrative shortcomings, posited as having indirectly contributed to the tragedy.
Legal and Political Reactions
Insiders within the ruling majority affirm that a thorough legal review has taken place, indicating that while the evidence may not be conclusively criminal, it still warrants further inquiry into misconduct in office. They argue that the evidence suggests possible breaches of administrative duties—sufficient for a preliminary investigation rather than immediate criminal charges.
The opposition, however, has responded vigorously. PASOK criticizes the investigation as a political maneuver to exonerate Karamanlis, accusing the proposal of crafting a “legal offense” for justification. Syriza dismisses the step as provocative, asserting it as an attempt by the ruling party to “instrumentalize” the tragedy and pursue an unconstitutional, illegal pre-investigation process designed to protect the former minister. KKE’s Nikos Karathanasopoulos termed the proposal insulting, while critics of Nea Dimokratia label it an “amnesty” for the minister implicated in the Tempi disaster.
Procedural Outlook and Implications
The parliamentary schedule anticipates a final debate and vote on the proposal by June 15, with a possibility of forwarding the case to the Judicial Council by mid-July. Given the current parliamentary dynamics, it is likely that the investigation will focus solely on Karamanlis and the misdemeanor of dereliction of duty. However, securing at least 151 votes in a secret ballot will be crucial for the approval of the preliminary inquiry, raising concerns among ND MPs regarding the robustness of the evidence.
As discussions evolve, this case illustrates the significant political polarization surrounding the Tempi tragedy. While the government aims to hold officials accountable for administrative failures, opposition parties accuse the ruling majority of politicization and legal overreach. The upcoming weeks will determine if the parliamentary process will culminate in an in-depth investigation or evolve into a platform for partisan disputes over accountability and justice in this tragic incident.
