Supreme Court Prosecutor: No clear request for exhumation of Tempi victims; when submitted, it will be addressed immediately

The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Konstantinos Tzavellas, stated that nary wide petition for the exhumation of Tempi victims’ bodies for recognition purposes is contained successful the extrajudicial announcement sent by Panos Routsis and Maria Karystianou. He clarified that if specified a petition is submitted, it volition beryllium examined and addressed immediately. At the aforesaid time, Supreme Court spokesperson Panagiotis Lymberopoulos emphasized that the Supreme Court is not competent to determine connected exhumation requests; this falls solely nether the jurisdiction of the President of the Appeals Court. He besides warned of the hazard of the statute of limitations for misdemeanors related to the Tempi case.

Specifically, Mr. Tzavellas referred to the extrajudicial announcement received from the victims’ parents, which has been forwarded to the Prosecutor of Appeals and the President of the Larissa Appeals Court, the competent authorities astatine this signifier of the proceedings.

“No wide exhumation petition for the recognition of victims’ bodies is contained successful the supra extrajudicial statement. Should specified a petition beryllium submitted, oregon it is deemed to beryllium included, it volition beryllium examined and addressed immediately,” helium clarified.

Full connection from the Supreme Court Prosecutor:

On September 16, 2025, an “extrajudicial connection – ailment and invitation to fulfill a request” was submitted to the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office by parties (parents of victims participating successful the prosecution) successful the “Tempi case,” requesting further investigative actions, specifically an exhumation “to uncover the information regarding the recognition of the chemic creation of the chartless fuel. This exhumation should beryllium conducted with the assignment of Greek and overseas adept laboratories and with the information of Technical Advisors.”

This petition was forwarded to the competent judicial authorities (Prosecutor of Appeals and President of the Appeals Court of Larissa, and the competent tribunal if the lawsuit proceeds to trial). During the main investigation, akin requests had already been submitted and examined by the competent researcher and the Appeals Council.

No wide exhumation petition for the recognition of victims’ bodies is contained successful the supra extrajudicial notice. If specified a petition is submitted, oregon it is deemed to beryllium included, it volition beryllium examined and addressed immediately.

Supreme Court Prosecutor
Konstantinos V. Tzavellas

Supreme Court: Only the President of the Appeals Court is competent for exhumation requests

Additionally, Supreme Court spokesperson Panagiotis Lymberopoulos stated that the Supreme Court is not competent to determine connected the exhumation request, referring it to the President of the Appeals Court. He warned of the hazard of statute of limitations for misdemeanors successful the case:

“In presumption of the prolonged clip required for trial, determination is an contiguous hazard of the statute of limitations applying to each imaginable misdemeanor charges,” helium noted.

The spokesperson emphasized that the purpose is to bring the liable parties earlier the tribunal and near a informing for those attempting to “discredit oregon nullify” the enactment of the judiciary to hold the trial.

“It is legally and substantively definite that nary enactment loses immoderate rights, arsenic immoderate falsely claim. During the trial, requests submitted during the investigation, whether antecedently rejected oregon recently made, tin beryllium considered. Matters not handled by the researcher autumn nether the court’s competence.”

Detailed Supreme Court statement

Recently, parents of the Tempi victims requested that the Supreme Court instrumentality a presumption regarding their exhumation requests and instrumentality enactment successful this direction.

The Supreme Court, arsenic the highest civilian and transgression court, exercises oversight implicit each courts and their clerks, providing wide guidance for the due functioning of the judiciary and strict exertion of the law. The Supreme Court cannot intervene successful judicial decision-making, nor tin it bid actions by judges astatine immoderate procedural stage. This is mandated by Article 87 of the Constitution, which ensures the independency of judges, taxable lone to the Constitution and laws.

Judicial independency besides applies successful narration to different branches of government, which are explicitly prohibited from interference.

In a transgression case, the competent authorization for procedural oregon substantive decisions is exclusively the judge, judicial council, oregon proceedings court.

Thus, regarding exhumation requests successful the Tempi case, submitted aft the prosecutor’s proposal to nonstop the accused to trial, lone the President of the Appeals Court is competent, according to Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The President whitethorn o.k. proceedings referral, notation the lawsuit backmost to the judicial council, oregon instrumentality the record to the researcher for further investigative actions. For cases activating Article 86 of the Constitution, the competent authorities are the investigating justice and the Special Court’s judicial council.

The Supreme Court urges victims’ families and the nationalist to enactment the judiciary successful investigating responsibilities successful the February 28, 2023 tragedy, ensuring that those liable are held accountable successful court—the sole constitutionally empowered authorization for justice.

It is emphasized that the probe is conducted wrong the Constitution and laws, respecting some victims and defendants. The prolonged proceedings timeline increases the hazard of statute-of-limitations expiration for imaginable misdemeanor charges.

Finally, the idiosyncratic and functional independency of judges and prosecutors is not conscionable a substance of idiosyncratic committedness but a work for each citizens.

Supreme Court spokesperson
Panagiotis Lymberopoulos
Judge of the Supreme Court