Maltese man facing extradition to Lithuania sues government for damages

Lawyers defending a Maltese man facing extradition to Lithuania on fraud charges have filed a case for damages against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General, alleging a misinterpretation of the law by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which upheld a magistrate's refusal to seek the guidance of the European Court of Justice on the man's extradition.

Angelo Spiteri is facing extradition on accusations of having set up a false business in Vilnius, which would convince its victims to sign accommodation agreements with hotels, and after signing and receiving payment for this, deliberately fail to provide the service for which it had been paid. If found guilty of the 4 charges brought against him in Lithuania, Spiteri could be facing 17 years in prison.

Magistrate Aaron Bugeja had initially ruled that the Maltese legislator had intentionally omitted to transpose an article of European law which would allow Spiteri to serve any sentence he would be handed in Lithuania in a Maltese prison.

Lithuanian prisons have been repeatedly criticised by human rights watchdogs for their inhumane conditions.

The defence argued that a preliminary ruling on the extradition had to be made by the ECJ. Malta had not ratified a part of the European Arrest Warrant framework agreement whereby Maltese courts could oblige courts in requesting states to return persons convicted after being extradited from Malta to serve their sentence.

The Court of Magistrates had only been able to strongly recommend, not bind the courts to order, his return and this necessitated that the issue be referred to the ECJ.

Madam justice Edwina Grima, presiding the Court of Criminal Appeal - the last court that could determine the issue, had upheld the magistrate's view.

In a sworn application filed this morning in the First Hall of the Civil Court, lawyers Jason Azzopardi, Chris Busietta, Patrick Valentino and Professor Ivan Sammut requested damages, arguing that the Court of Criminal Appeal had made an incorrect interpretation of the law which caused Spiteri to suffer a breach of his human rights.

There was a large body of court judgements by the ECJ that make it clear that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Malta was legally obliged to request the preliminary reference.

The ECJ had consistently decided against Member States which had failed to make preliminary references when legally obliged to. It also made it clear that it would the obligation of the Member State to pay damages.

Spiteri had also filed Constitutional proceedings relating to his extradition, which are also pending.