Today, Thursday (5/3/2026), for the second session, the Five-Member Criminal Court of Appeals continues issuing its verdict for the 42 convicted individuals in the case of the criminal organization Golden Dawn. The court is examining the convicted defendants’ requests for recognition of mitigating circumstances.
One by one, the convicted individuals have begun since yesterday, Wednesday, to submit requests for recognition of mitigating circumstances following the conviction ruling that determined Golden Dawn operated as a criminal organization.
The procedure now focuses on examining the arguments presented by defense attorneys, who are seeking –case by case– recognition of prior lawful conduct, good behavior after the act, non-base motives, violation of the presumption of innocence, and unreasonable trial duration.
The individuals convicted of directing and participating in the criminal organization, through their attorneys, invoked among other things their age, professional and social background, as well as evidence that, they argue, proves their honest prior conduct.
Yannis Lagos requested recognition of prior lawful conduct and good behavior after the act, as well as the mitigating circumstance of unreasonable trial duration.
For Artemis Matthaiopoulos, his attorney Nikos Roussopoulos argued that the conviction ruling “will be judged by history,” requesting recognition of mitigating factors. For George Roupakias, his proxy attorney requested recognition of prior lawful conduct and good behavior after the act, presenting relevant documentation from the correctional facility, while also raising the issue of unreasonable trial duration.
Ilias Kasidiaris’s attorney, Vaso Pantazi, requested recognition of prior lawful conduct, good behavior after the act, and unreasonable procedural duration. As she noted, her client has a clean criminal record, while she invoked his electoral career and the –according to her– social and political acceptance he continues to have despite his detention. She also mentioned educational activities and participation in programs within the detention facility.
For former MPs Stathis Boukuras and Chrysovalantis Alexopoulos, recognition of the mitigating circumstance of unreasonable trial duration was requested, while for the latter an additional request was made for recognition of prior lawful conduct, referencing his personal and family life before his involvement in the case.
Other convicted individuals also submitted requests regarding violation of the presumption of innocence, including Christos Pappas and George Patelis, arguing that statements and positions during the investigation and after the first-instance ruling influenced the climate against them.
Recognition of prior lawful conduct and good behavior after the act was also requested by Elena Zaroulia’s defense, noting that if mitigating factors are not recognized, she may be sent to prison for the first time, as she had been granted a suspensive effect on appeal at first instance.
The procedure is expected to continue with completion of defense attorneys’ pleadings, while a proposal from presiding prosecutor Kyriaki Stefanatou on the mitigating factor requests may also follow.
The court’s final decision on mitigating factors will determine not only the severity of sentences but also whether some convicted individuals will immediately serve prison terms or not.
If the court ultimately adopts prosecutor Stelios Kostarellos’s appeal regarding sentences imposed on a total of twelve defendants, then the organization’s leadership faces harsher penalties.
Specifically, the seven former MPs convicted as directors of the Golden Dawn criminal organization face harsher sentences, as well as the five convicted for the attempted murder of Egyptian fisherman Abousid Embarak in June 2012 in Ikonio Perama.
Meanwhile, former MPs Stathis Boukuras, Chrysovalantis Alexopoulos and Michalis Arvanitis, Elena Zaroulia, and Dimitris Koukoutsis face the possibility of imprisonment, as they had been granted suspension pending appeal until the second-instance court’s ruling.
