The PASOK Change Parliamentary Group filed a request for the establishment of a Special Parliamentary Committee for a preliminary examination for any criminal liability at the time of the Deputy Minister in question under Prime Minister Christos Triantopoulos in accordance with Article 86 (3) of the Constitution. .

As stated in the request of the KO. of PASOK Change: “There are (at least) serious indications that the then Deputy Minister under Prime Minister Christos Triantopoulos, through his participation in the” Informal Meeting “or” Meeting “of 3.3.2023, was alleged to have decided to alter his alteration. of the accident, without the lawful information and permission of the competent judicial authority and despite explicitly expressed objections of the Traffic Commander and until a few hours of the time responsible for ensuring the site as a preliminary investigation, which has not stated the unlawful nature of the area. Such an intervention and withdrew, caused the decision to the competent officials to violate their duty by allowing the site to be altered and giving the relevant mandate to the Company of Earthworks to transfer the foregoing and in any case, he consent and contributed to this decision. , by offering them the necessary mental assistance through the obvious “political coverage” of their act and in any, in addition, he failed to prevent them, although he had a particular legal obligation to do so, from the completion of the forecasting of the space and the extent of the space. The disappearance of critical evidence to clarify the investigations investigated by the interrogation of crimes. In contrast to the previous meetings of the Coordinating Body, no documents and documents were kept for this meeting, which validates the indications, beyond the explicit warnings of the Traffic Commander on the conscious choice of the participants. “

In addition, it is noted: “It is also characteristic that the other criminal prosecution was ordered by the Prosecutor of Appeals of Larissa, except for the defendant, for whom the prosecutor was ordered at the expense of other participants in this critical” meeting “or” meeting “, except for the Prosecutor. They were deprived of competence in view of Article 86 p.