In an open attack on the President of the Athens Bar Association and the plenary of the Bar Associations of Greece, Dimitris Vervesouthe government spokesman proceeded Paul Marinakiswith the backdrop of the revelation thatI was aware of the infamous report of Anastasios Dede Experts For Tempi, but without communicating or informing it publicly, despite his public positions on the conflict.
At informing political editors, Pavlos Marinakis described Vervesu’s attitude as a “serious issue of credibility”, who, as he said, while had knowledge of the report which rejects the theories of “fireplace”, continued to express views that reinforced the rhetoric of concealment.
“When you make judgments and accusations, and you know that there is an expertise that says the opposite, how serious is this? How reliable are you when you hide the truth? ” The government spokesman questioned, recalling Vervesos’ statements on television broadcasts, such as on Kontra Channel, where he spoke of “concealment” and “silicone oils”.
Marinakis acknowledged that The last interview of the president of the SAA was institutionalizedhowever, he pointed out that for weeks Dimitris Vervesos had adopted a public attitude that was deducted from his role as an institutional factor.
“He did not speak as an institutional factor in the country, as he should. He did not make a policy in the name of his property alone. It became part of the tool of an accident, “he said.
Floridis: We are waiting for answers – the issue of major moral class
The Minister of Justice was also placed on the issue, George Floridiswho talked about the issue of “major political and moral order”, calling on both Dimitris Vervesos and the plenary of the Bar Associations to provide immediate explanations.
“Mr Vervesos is not a mere lawyer. He is an institutional representative. We are waiting for answers from himself and from the plenary. If it is true that he was aware of the report and did not give it, this is a very serious case for the whole lawyer, “the minister said.
At the same time, he did not fail to recall that in the case of the tragedy in Mati there was no similar activation on the part of the lawyers.
Vervesu answer: “I couldn’t because of the secret of pre -trial”
Dimitris Vervesos himself, in his statements to One Channel, confirmed that he was aware of the contents of Anastasios Dede’s reporthowever, explaining that he could not make it public, citing the secret of pre -trial pre -trial.
“I can’t walk the case file. I am a lawyer, I have to adhere to the secret of the pre -trial pre -trial. If I had to give publicity and documents, it would be illegal, “he said, stressing that the report was based on the data that the authorities had in 2024 leading to the scenario of silicone oils.
The president of the SAA also claimed that the latest data on the existence of aromatic hydrocarbons and the challenge of the original scenario emerged from the later studies of EPAAAM and the Belgian authorities, that is, long after their own report was drawn up.
“Our criticism was in the fact that material was moved from the scene of the accident. We focused on the causal relationship of the machine 717 with derailment. If something else happened later, we didn’t know that then, “he said.
When asked if she would make the report public in case her content supported fire theories, Mr Vervesos avoided responding directly.
The Ded Report and the Plenary Station
The controversial report by Anastasios Dede, commissioned by the Plenary of the Bar Associations to the Mechanical and Experts, was handed over to investigating authorities in January 2024. Technical analysis deconstructs theories on “fireplace” and focuses on the technical and functional causes of the accident.
“The expert analyzes the circumstances of the accident in a thorough and scientific way, reaching specific conclusions that help the search for truth,” he said in the plenary document.
The backdrop and reactions
The case It has triggered chain reactions to the political and legal field. Mr Vervesos’ statement on “non -publicity due to secrecy”, while publicly talking about “concealment”, calls into question the consistency of the reasons and actions of a leading institutional factor.
The question that remains open now is whether the plenary of the Bar Associations will cover or condemn its president – and whether the institutional role can coexist with political intervention, especially when society’s confidence in justice and institutional function is at stake.