The cover-up of responsibilities of political figures accountable for the crime at Tempi is being upgraded and acquiring characteristics of a legal fiasco as well.
The majority's proposal for prosecution, as made public, is a sham. Prosecution of Karamanlis is sought for the misdemeanor of breach of duty, specifically for the fact that Karamanlis as Transport Minister did not proceed with the necessary actions for OSE funding knowingly, with the intent to cause damage to OSE as a corporation. Nothing else.
According to Kathimerini of May 5th, "Mr. Karamanlis's response to his interlocutors is that from mid-2022 he began extensive correspondence with the Finance Ministry requesting an increase in annual state funding from 45 to 75 million euros. The request was approved in summer 2023," that is, after the Tempi crime.
So then what intent to cause economic damage to OSE? What knowing will and intention to omit OSE funding? What breach of duty as an objective element?
There is no mention of the causal connection between the Minister's omission to proceed timely with all necessary actions for OSE funding, his omission to take measures for the execution of contract 717, his omission to impose the taking of measures by other public authorities (RAS), and the death of 57 people.
Did Karamanlis as minister do everything he should have done to prevent the human losses? And if he did, why wasn't the tragedy averted?
Before the 2023 parliamentary elections, there was the view of the government majority that he didn't do them, which is why he was included in the Serres ballot. Now that the opinion has changed - especially after February 28, 2025 - and has adopted the view that he is responsible and therefore prosecution should be pursued for breach of duty, how is it justified that he still remains a member of the Parliamentary Group and the New Democracy party while investigation of his criminal acts and omissions is being sought, albeit now, belatedly?
Is there some other plan? And I'm not referring to him landing softly because investigation of a felony is not being sought - for which both the subjective element of intent or negligence would be investigable. I wonder if there's some plan to support a manifestly unfounded charge that will collapse at the Judicial Council and be archived?
Perhaps that's where the generic communicative platitudes and hot air about "no shadow," "Justice has the first and last word," "natural judges" and other such things will find their match?
