The trial over the Tempi rail disaster resumes Monday, July 27, with defense lawyers for the accused responding to the prosecutor’s recommendations on requests to postpone the trial, refer a preliminary question to the European Union’s court, and challenge the validity of the summons.

The prosecutor had recommended rejecting the postponement requests filed under Article 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by lawyers representing accused ERGOSE officials, who are also defendants in a separate case being handled by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office over financial offenses tied to the implementation of Contract 717.

Konstantopoulou: splitting the case file risks a cover-up

Lawyers representing the prosecution side wrapped up their arguments today. Zoi Konstantopoulou, representing victims’ families and an injured survivor, called the postponement request a blatant stalling tactic, arguing that the European Prosecutor’s case is at a much earlier stage.

Konstantopoulou asked that the request be rejected, though she noted that material from the European Prosecutor’s case tied to Contract 717 should be tracked down and connected to the current trial. She warned that splitting the case file in a way that separates out the ERGOSE officials risks leading to a cover-up and turning the trial into a farce.

Sofos: rail safety and EU financial harm are inseparable

Only one defense lawyer spoke today: Themistoklis Sofos, representing the former head of the Larissa inspection department under the rail traffic support service for central and southern Greece.

Sofos opened by calling the prosecutor’s position, that there’s no shared underlying act connecting the cases, legally flawed. He argued that three separate proceedings, the European Prosecutor’s case, the rail disaster case, and the case against former Transport Minister Kostas Achilleas Karamanlis being handled by the Supreme Court’s special investigator, all stem from the same real-world event.

He also noted that his request to refer a preliminary question to the EU’s Court of Justice, which the prosecutor likewise recommended rejecting, concerns whether splitting the case file this way complies with EU law, given that it denies his client access to the European Prosecutor’s file and raises the risk of being judged twice by separate courts.

Sofos closed by arguing that harm to the EU’s financial interests and the disruption of transport safety are inherently linked.

The trial resumes Monday, with one more session set for Tuesday, July 28, before the August recess.