The V Criminal Department of the Supreme Court, as it became known, in the case of Alexander Yotopoulos, considered that the legal conditions for granting the conditional dismissal were not met and overturned the decree of the Piraeus Board of Appeals for a new crisis.
Areopagites felt that with the new Criminal Code "regulated for the first time, explicitly, to cover the legislative vacuum“ this particular issue, which leads to the conclusion that a real 25-year-old is required, even for crimes committed before 1 July 2019.
The key point of the decision is the interpretation of the provisions of the current Criminal Code for convicts serving more life sentences.
Still, the Supreme Ice rejected the appeal of better legal treatment which has been shaped in recent years. As they say, the principle of better law "presupposes comparison between more provisions of laws" and not between a legislative provision and a judicial interpretation that had covered an earlier legislative vacuum."
Moreover, the Areopagites considered the opinion of the Board of Appeals of Piraeus in its statement of reasons ‘it did not provide the necessary specific and detailed justification’ for establishing the essential conditions of the dismissal condition.
At the counsel of the Supreme Court, elements such as consistent compliance with the terms of the permits, completion of university studies and absence of recent disciplinary misconduct are not sufficient in themselves to establish the required moral conversion of the prisoner.
On the contrary, these elements ‘are indicative of the concept of external good behaviour rather than good conduct’, which, at the judgment of the Supreme Court, must reflect a substantial and internal acceptance of the rules of law.
As far as the studies of Alexander Yotopoulos are concerned, the Areios Ice acknowledges that his studies prove "his commitment to his goal to remain operational during his perennial confinement". But this element alone is not sufficient to prove his penance or moral improvement.
At the same time, insufficient evidence is given, according to the Areopagites and the justification for the public intervention of the prisoner, as it does not explain how specific letters or public statements are linked to a change in his attitude towards the legal order or are a sign of actual correction.
Finally, a special burden is placed on the matter of regret, as it is noted that does not result from the evidence in the case ‘his sincere regret about the crimes he committed and his disfellowshiping from his criminal past", while it is noted that the decree itself accepts that the condemned "never accepted his actions, nor expressed regret". This element, according to the Supreme Court, can be assessed as an indication that the required moral conversion of Alexander Yotopoulos has not been completed.