The Attorney General has appealed a decision by a Magistrates’ Court turning down an extradition request for a Romanian prince whose fundamental rights risked being breached if he were to be sent back to his homeland.
The appeal was filed on Thursday within the three-day time limit in terms of the Extradition Act, following the decision handed down on Monday in respect of 75-year-old Paul Philippe Al Romaniei.
On December 17, 2020, the prince was convicted by the High Court of Cassation in Romania for corruption and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months.
The next day, an alert was issued on the Schengen Information System together with a European Arrest Warrant by the Court of Appeal at Brasov targeting Al Romaniei who was found to have been involved in the illegal restitution and sale of land in Bucharest.
The property had belonged to his family before it was nationalized under communist rule and the Romanian court found that the scheme had cost the state more than €145 million.
A similar extradition request by the Romanian authorities had been turned down by the two courts in France where Al Romaniei now lives.
The Court of Appeal in Paris concluded that there was a “real risk” that the requested person’s fundamental rights would be breached if he were to be surrendered to the Romanian authorities.
The original texts of those judgments were presented in evidence when a similar extradition request landed before the Magistrates’ Courts in May.
Al Romaniei’s Maltese lawyers argued that his fundamental rights risked being violated if he were to be returned to Romania.
On Monday, the court upheld that “fundamental rights defence,” turning down the extradition request.
However, Al Romaniei was remanded in custody pending the three-day time limit within which the AG could lodge an appeal.
Today, the AG argued that the Magistrates’ Court presiding over the extradition proceedings as a court of committal was not the proper court to decide upon such alleged breaches of fundamental rights.
That court had requested detailed information from the Romanian authorities about prison conditions in the country where Al Romaniei was wanted to serve time.
The court also sought a guarantee that Al Romaniei would not suffer any breach of his right against inhuman and degrading treatment.
But the AG argued that “with all due respect the assessment carried out by the first court and its eventual decision can only be carried out by the First Hall Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.”
Such a decision called for a “specialized analysis” by the competent court.
The decision to refuse to surrender was a “specific and technical” one and the court deciding on the merits must have the competence to delve into such technicalities.
In Al Romaniei’s case, the first court “was exercising a power which was not vested unto it,” argued the appellant.
The AG was in no way suggesting that the first court should “turn a blind eye” to allegations of breach of rights and in fact, the appellant was not objecting to the court requesting further information about prison conditions from Romanian authorities and a guarantee that Al Romaniei’s rights would be safeguarded.
The first court reached its conclusion based on information supplied by Al Romaniei’s lawyers. That information did not support their claim that he would “personally” suffer such a breach of rights if returned to Romania.
No evidence showing “a real and serious risk” was put forward, the AG added, thus requesting the court to reverse the decision and order Al Romaniei’s extradition.
Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Kris Busietta are defence counsel.
AG lawyers Meredith Ebejer and Sean Xerri de Caro are representing the appellant.