The Three-Member Court of Appeals for Felonies in Larissa did not issue an immediate ruling on a request to upgrade and broaden the charges in the trial concerning the Tempe rail disaster. The court’s presiding judge stated that the motion—filed by the legal team representing victims’ families and survivors of the Tempe tragedy—will be examined only after evidentiary proceedings begin, including witness testimonies and presentation of evidence.
Multiple Motions Pending Review
The court also postponed decisions on two additional motions: one seeking to add new documents to the case file and call additional witnesses, and another requesting the annulment of the indictment document that sent the defendants to trial. The presiding judge explained that the court will first hear objections and arguments from the defense before reaching a final decision.
In contrast, the court rejected a request for a new supplementary investigation into the case.
Trial Continues Tomorrow
The trial is set to resume tomorrow, Wednesday, 8 July 2026. At that session, the defendants and their attorneys will present their formal objections, motions, and positions regarding the charges they face.
Opening Statements Highlight Key Disputes
Today’s hearing began with statements from prosecutors’ counsel, including lawyer Zoi Konstantopoulou, who represents victims’ relatives. She criticized the Greek state’s official declaration of support for the prosecution as a “pseudo-declaration,” noting it lacked clarity on the factual basis behind former Deputy Transport Minister Konstantinos Kyranakis’s decision to submit such a declaration—particularly since it applied to only four of the 36 accused individuals.
Defense attorneys then responded, arguing that the motion to upgrade charges was premature. Several highlighted the request to reclassify the homicide charges—from negligent homicide to homicide with possible intent—and referenced the precedent of the Samaina ferry disaster case. Aristomenis Tzannetis, defense counsel for an OSE (Hellenic Railways Organisation) executive, stressed that the legal concept of ‘possible intent’ had long been abandoned in similar cases, citing evolving jurisprudence. He emphasized the critical distinction between accepting a harmful outcome versus accepting the risk of such an outcome—calling the difference “enormous.”
Tzannetis also warned that if the charge upgrade is approved, the Larissa Court of Appeals would lose jurisdiction, requiring the case to be transferred to a Mixed Jury Court—a move likely to further delay proceedings.
Earlier on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, the presiding judge informed counsel that a forensic report from the Directorate of Investigation had been submitted to the court.