Context and Legal Framework

The government majority’s proposal aims to investigate whether, between September 2021—coinciding with the submission of two incriminating letters related to underfunding and understaffing at OSE—and February 28, 2023—the date of the tragic Tempi train disaster—there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Karamanlis committed a breach of duty. The core question centers on potential criminal liability for negligence, with the proposal emphasizing alleged omissions during this period that may have contributed to the catastrophe.

In contrast, former Minister Christos Spirtzis, under the SYRIZA government, acknowledges indications of criminal misconduct but argues that the statute of limitations has expired, thus precluding further investigation. Meanwhile, PASOK has submitted its proposal, seeking to investigate broader allegations involving not only Karamanlis but also former deputy ministers such as Kefalogiannis, Karagiannis, Papadopoulos, and others, for disturbing public transport security—a move reflecting the complex web of political and legal considerations at play.

Details of the ND Proposal

According to protothema.gr, the ND legal team’s proposal relies on the extensive case file assembled by investigating magistrate Sotiris Bakaimi. It recommends forming a “Special Parliamentary Committee” under Article 86(3) of the Constitution to scrutinize any possible breach of duty by Karamanlis. The core aim is to establish whether he neglected responsibilities during the period in question, particularly concerning funding and staffing deficiencies at OSE, which allegedly resulted in financial damages and compromised safety.

The proposal delineates specific points, including:

– The administrative oversight role of the Ministry clarifies that safety oversight falls under the independent Railway Regulatory Authority (RRA).
– The autonomous status of OSE as a legal entity responsible for infrastructure management and safety compliance.
– The absence of concrete recommendations or mandated actions from the ministry suggests limited criminal liability for the minister.
– A clear distinction between civil and criminal liability, emphasizing that negligence in funding and staffing does not automatically equate to criminal conduct.
– A rebuttal to potential claims that ministers could be held criminally responsible for safety lapses on incomplete highways, underlining the uniqueness of railway safety regulations.
– The assertion that, based on the case file, there is no evidence of conduct dangerous to safety as defined by Article 291 of the Criminal Code.
– Notably, the proposal points out that both OSE and Hellenic Train met all safety conditions on the day of the accident, according to national and European standards.

The crux of ND’s argument is that the investigation should focus on systemic issues—namely, underfunding and understaffing—raised by ministry officials, rather than on individual criminal acts by Karamanlis. The proposal concludes with a call to establish a parliamentary committee to probe these administrative failures, which are argued to have contributed indirectly to the tragedy.

Legal and Political Reactions

Sources within the majority emphasize that exhaustive legal review has been conducted, and the current evidence, while not conclusively criminal, warrants further investigation into misconduct in office. They argue that the case file’s contents suggest possible violations of administrative duties—sufficient grounds for a preliminary inquiry rather than criminal prosecution.

Opposition parties, however, have responded sharply. PASOK contends that the investigation is a political maneuver aimed at absolving Karamanlis, accusing the proposal of constructing a “legal offense” to justify exoneration. Syriza dismisses the move as provocative, criticizing it as an attempt by the ruling party to “instrumentalize” the tragedy and move toward an unconstitutional, illegal pre-investigation process designed to shield the former minister. KKE’s Nikos Karathanasopoulos called the proposal insulting, while Nea Dimokratia’s critics label it as an “amnesty” for the minister involved in the Tempi disaster.

Procedural Outlook and Implications

The parliamentary timetable suggests a final debate and vote on the proposal by June 15, with the case potentially forwarded to the Judicial Council by mid-July. Given the current parliamentary arithmetic, it is most probable that the investigation will target only Karamanlis and focus on the misdemeanor of dereliction of duty. However, the approval of the preliminary inquiry hinges on securing at least 151 votes in a secret ballot—an element that has introduced some reservations among ND MPs regarding the strength of the evidence.

As the debate unfolds, the case exemplifies the deep political polarization surrounding the Tempi tragedy. While the government seeks to hold officials accountable for administrative shortcomings, opposition parties accuse the ruling majority of politicization and overreaching in the law. The coming weeks will reveal whether the parliamentary process will lead to a substantive investigation or serve as a battleground for partisan confrontation over responsibility and justice in this tragic incident.