Greece’s parliament has expelled three far-right lawmakers after a court found that they misled voters and effectively served as proxies for a jailed politician convicted of leading a criminal organization.
AP says the decision affected Vasilis Stigas, leader of the Spartans party, and two other party lawmakers. The court’s finding was that they had misled voters in the 2023 election by masking their links to a former member of Golden Dawn, the neo-Nazi-inspired party whose former figure was sentenced in 2020 to 13 years in prison for organizing violent attacks on migrants and political opponents.
The ruling is important well beyond the three seats involved. It reduces the size of parliament from 300 members to 297 for the rest of the term through 2027, and it lowers the threshold needed to pass legislation from 151 votes to 149. That may sound procedural, but in a closely divided legislature it can affect how the government governs and how opponents try to block it.
AP says Greece’s conservative government welcomed the decision. The Spartans, which won 4.7% of the vote in 2023, denied any affiliation with Golden Dawn and did not immediately respond. Two remaining Spartans lawmakers will continue as independents. The case also reflects a wider European concern: mainstream parties are increasingly confronting far-right groups that try to enter politics while downplaying their ties to anti-democratic or violent movements.
For Greece, the ruling closes one channel through which a banned political legacy might have continued to sit in parliament. For the broader European far right, it is a reminder that courts can still intervene when parties are found to have deceived voters about who they really represent.
The court ruling also matters because it clarifies that the state can intervene when a party is found to have hidden its true political lineage. That may discourage other groups from trying to profit from extremist legacies while pretending to offer a cleaner brand.
For voters, the decision removes three lawmakers but not the broader problem of far-right politics in Europe. The question now is whether mainstream parties can hold that line consistently, rather than only after a scandal reaches the courtroom.
The ruling is therefore both punitive and procedural. It punishes deception, but it also forces parliament to operate with a slightly smaller chamber and a different voting math for the rest of the term.
The ruling is therefore both punitive and procedural. It punishes deception, but it also forces parliament to operate with a slightly smaller chamber and a different voting math for the rest of the term.
That procedural effect may prove important if the legislature becomes tighter over the rest of the term. A few votes can matter more once the chamber itself has been reduced.
The ruling also sends a signal to voters about how courts can respond when far-right politics crosses into deception. That may matter as much as the seat count itself in the next election cycle.
