“Mr. Androulakis’ PASOK envied SYRIZA and the doctrine of Polakis”
Her sources ND about With PASOK’s proposal to set up a pre -trial committee report the following:
“The majority of the government is thoroughly examining the entire case file and will soon announce its position after completing the evaluation process at the disposal of the House. In any case, the New Democracy, as it has proven to date and in the case of Christos Triantopoulos, is completely institutional and will be placed as a whole, without standing in the way of the work of justice.
The 6 reasons that degrade PASOK’s indictment for criminal offenses.
• The indictment compiled by the PASOK At the expense of Messrs. Kostas Karamanlis and Christos Spirtzis as well as the Deputy Ministers of the period 2016-2023 to investigate criminal offenses, that is, offenses containing the element of deception and resulted in 57 dead and large number of injuries, are completely unfounded and completely intact. Unless in PASOK they really believe that the above are personally responsible and deliberately responsible for the particular accident that resulted in the Railway Tragedy of Tempi with 57 dead.
• Once again PASOK, as well as other opposition parties, do not propose the revelation of truth and the rendering of responsibilities on the basis of facts, but attempt the political exploitation of the tragedy, adopting precisely scenarios and conspiracy theories that collapse. It seems that Mr. Androulakis’ PASOK has envied SYRIZA and the Polakis doctrine who wanted to be “in prison” indiscriminately, but also the practices of Papagelopoulos who urged prosecutors to “pull a prosecution” without any details and to go.
But why is it not a legal basis for PASOK’s indictment regarding the investigation of criminal offenses?
1) The supervision of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport to OSE – ERGOSE is only administrative.
The PASOK indictment is based on the apologies of 2 officials of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport who argued that the supervision of the OSE infrastructure manager, and the implementation body of Convention 717 (ERGOSE), is exercised by the Ministers of Infrastructure and Transport. However, the directors have documented that the Minister’s supervision is exclusively administrative and in no way concerning security issues. The only competent authority for security issues is RAS, which must suggest and decide on all relevant security issues. Documents show that both the RAS and the European Railway Organization (ERA) had issued certificates for the safety of rail transport before the Tempe tragedy. Therefore, what could any Minister could do when the competent rail safety authorities certified their safe operation? It is clear, then, that the ministry’s supervision is solely administrative and is not related to rail safety issues.
2) Ministry officials are prosecuted because they did not take the necessary steps to the Minister to take additional measures.
These two officials have been prosecuted and, according to the indictment, among their omissions, it is noted that they did not take the required preparatory actions to the Minister in order to be able to take additional measures. Correspondingly to the indictment of the President of the RAS, it is noted that it did not recommend, as it should, measures to the Minister to establish national rules and taking other measures. So how is it possible on the one hand that the investigator requests the criminal inspection of officials for not taking the necessary steps to the Minister and at the same time to attribute corresponding responsibilities and even some of the minister?
3) The indictment against directors cannot be transferred to the Minister since they had not made the required suggestions.
PASOK’s claim that the indictment against the two directors should also be transferred to their supervisor to their boss. Criminal responsibility is personal and not collective. It is not transferred by the existing one to the boss nor vice versa. Everyone is judged on the basis of their personal duties and the law.
4) Political responsibility for systemic problems is not identified with criminal responsibilities and even a criminal nature.
Systemic problems and administrative issues and only supervision of ministers cannot be combined with their criminal and criminal acts. If the non -implementation of the additional security systems raises criminal liability for ministers, with the same logic all Ministers of Infrastructure and Transport should be criminalized for accidents on highways that have not been completed (Pyrgos – Patras, BOAK).
The New Democracy separates policy from criminal responsibility over time, and therefore in any tragedy, it was never a criminal prosecution for ministers of the governments (Samina, Mati, Mandra), while lawsuits had been sent to the House. Especially for the eye, justice itself states that if it operated in 112 some of the victims of the tragedy would have been saved. And in the Samina case, the New Democracy simply requested an Inquiry Committee that the then PASOK government refused.
5) The transmitter of justice explicitly concerns the ministers and not the Deputy Ministers.
The transmitter of Justice is exclusively refers to the Ministers of Infrastructure and Transport of the period (from 1.1.2016 to 28.2.2023), without including the Deputy Ministers. Therefore, PASOK’s attempt to add to his indictment the deputy ministers of the above period has no legal basis, is not based on facts, and even conflicts with the official transmitter of justice, which explicitly refers to ministers.
6) Scheduled deadline for Christos Spirtzis.
For the former Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, Mr. Christos Spirtzis, any criminal inferiority have been eliminated due to the beneficial provisions in force in Article 86 of the Constitution before it was revised in 2019 and therefore its criminal investigation is not proposed. Any acceptance of the proposal necessarily implies Mr Spirtz’s discharge and therefore simply becomes just for impressions. “