A request by Romanian authorities for Malta to extradite Prince Paul Philippe Al Romaniei was turned down by the court of appeal on Monday after it found a “real and personal risk” that his fundamental rights would be breached.
Prince Paul Philippe was arrested in April on the strength of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and held under arrest for two months until he was granted bail.
The 77-year-old lived in Paris, having fled his homeland in 2020 after being found guilty of illegal restitution of real estate near Bucharest, over which authorities said that he falsely claimed ownership.
A Romanian court had condemned to three years and four months imprisonment. His lawyers claim that the criminal charges against him were politically motivated and that Prince Paul Philippe was being politically persecuted.
While living in Paris, he successfully challenged a similar extradition request by the Romanian authorities before the French courts.
The request by the Romanian authorities for Malta to extradite the prince was originally turned down by Magistrate Leonard Caruana on the grounds that he would suffer a breach of fundamental rights if he were to be sent back to Romania.
Besides highlighting “terrifying” conditions in Romanian prisons, they also claimed that the prince was a victim of political persecution.
That decision was overturned on appeal and the case was sent back before the Magistrates’ Courts for proceedings to start afresh.
The second court, presided by Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, upheld the extradition request and did not delve into human rights issues saying that the European Council Legal Framework excluded such a possibility.
Prince Paul Philippe’s lawyers filed separate proceedings before the constitutional courts which resulted in a landmark pronouncement.
The three judges presiding over the Constitutional Court declared that in European Arrest Warrant proceedings, courts of criminal jurisdiction had “the duty to decide whether on the basis of evidence there was a real risk that the surrender of the wanted person would result in inhuman and degrading treatment.”
The judges stressed that any argument to the contrary “was wrong.”
Saying that the criminal courts lacked competence to venture into human rights matters in EAW proceedings, would result in “a lack of implementation of European law, including the EU Charter of Human Rights, and that could have consequences upon the proceedings.”
When delivering final judgment on Monday, the Court of Criminal Appeal presided by Madam Justice Edwina Grima made reference to that constitutional pronouncement.
In a 73-page judgment she noted the age, health issues and special status of the requested person who was a member of the Romanian royal family, recognized as a legitimate heir to the throne in 2012 after years of dispute.
That status which was “still subject to controversy,” appeared to be “at the heart of the conviction handed down” against Prince Paul Philippe by the High Court of Romania.
Viewed in the light of European and international concerns about prison conditions in Romania, “with a special highlight on the Bucharest-Rahova prison which has been the subject of various human rights violation cases,” and which was to accommodate Prince Paul Philippe, the court concluded that “the real and personal risk” of human rights violation could not be excluded.
The court thus upheld his appeal, revoked the decision by the Magistrates’ Court and ordered Prince Paul Philippe’s release, declaring that if the EAW were to be executed there was a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Lawyers Jason Azzopardi, Kris Busietta and Alessandro Farrugia assisted Prince Paul Philippe.