A Maltese man wanted in Italy for possible prosecution over suspected involvement in a criminal racket was spared extradition by a court on Tuesday.

Marco German, 59, was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari del Tribunale di Catanzaro in January, followed by an alert on the Schengen Information System.

German was one of two drivers suspected of involvement in a criminal organisation, which illegally exported construction vehicles from Calabria to Malta, with activities allegedly also spanning Romania and Ricadi.

The arrest warrant had listed specific details as the time and date when German and the other driver were “assigned the task of finding purchasers in that foreign country”.

The warrant also indicated specific vehicles whose registration plates were allegedly falsified, as well as false invoices. 

In considering the extradition request, Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech observed that an arrest warrant was issued for the purpose of criminal prosecution in the requesting state. It was only for exceptional reasons that a court might decide not to rely on the declaration by the foreign judicial authority.

But in German’s case, the declarations by the Italian authorities indicated that they had taken a step back from their initial position when the arrest warrant was issued for criminal prosecution.

His lawyers had argued that proceedings against him in Italy were still at the investigation stage. The court had consequently requested information as to whether investigations had been completed and if there was an intention to prosecute. 

The reply by the Italian authorities was “diametrically opposed” to what had been declared “in definite and precise” terms in the original warrant.

Magistrate Frendo Dimech said terms such as “first step of investigation” and “possible” prosecution were troubling since the European Arrest Warrant had categorically stated its purpose was “to conduct a criminal prosecution.”

It did not make sense to say that prosecution was “simply a potential” course.

The court, therefore, concluded that the Italian authorities had failed to clearly answer its questions and the requisites for upholding the request for extradition were not satisfied.  

Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo were defence counsel.