With an acquittal ruling by the Single-Judge Misdemeanor Court of Piraeus (Single-Judge Court of Kythira – transitional), the legal proceedings concerning the work carried out at the Moudario Signal Station have been concluded.
The case was initiated following an ex officio investigation and related complaints, with the indictment charging the members of the Board of Directors of the Kythira and Antikythira Local Property Commission with carrying out illegal construction work without a permit, as well as unauthorized alterations to a historic monument. However, the court ruled that the defendants are not criminally liable.
The work in question was carried out in the spring of 2021. According to the defendants, the interventions were based on a technical report by the regional architectural engineer and were exclusively of a remedial and reinforcing nature (such as closing openings, cleaning, and creating slopes for rainwater runoff). The building had suffered severe damage due to the harsh weather conditions on the northern tip of the island, posing a risk of collapse and accidents for visitors.
With regard to the building permit issue, the defense relied on the provisions of urban planning legislation (Article 30, paragraph c), according to which no permit or approval is required for small-scale work involving local repairs and reinforcements carried out without the use of scaffolding. It emerged during the proceedings that, due to the low height of the building (approximately 3 meters) and difficulties in accessing it, the work was ultimately carried out using portable ladders rather than fixed scaffolding, thus falling under the aforementioned exception in the law.
During the hearing, the status of the property was examined in detail. As evidenced by the official documents, at the time the work was carried out (2021), the Mudario Signal Station had not yet been officially designated as a protected modern monument.
The relevant procedure by the Service of Modern Monuments was initiated later, in 2022, while it had not yet been confirmed whether the building had reached the 100-year threshold required by law (with 1923 or 1927 as the reference years). Consequently, the court ruled that the charge of tampering with a protected monument was not objectively substantiated.
The recommendation of the presiding prosecutor, who recommended the acquittal of the members of the Board of Directors, carried particular weight in the outcome of the trial. According to the reasoning behind her recommendation, the evidence presented during the trial showed that the defendants had no intention of committing a specific act, namely, carrying out such construction work in violation of Article 94 of Law 4495/17 without a building permit.
The prosecutor emphasized that those involved acted based on the technical recommendations and assurances of the responsible engineers, who had informed them that no further urban planning permits were required for these specific remedial measures. Subsequently, the prosecutor recommended the acquittal of the defendants due to doubts regarding the existence of intent, a proposal that was fully accepted by the Single-Judge Misdemeanor Court, leading to their acquittal.
