Convicted rapist resisting European Arrest Warrant to serve prison sentence in Bulgaria

His return is being requested so that he can serve a three-year prison sentence that he had received in connection with a 2013 rape conviction

A convicted rapist who is wanted in Bulgaria to serve a prison sentence is resisting a new European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued against him.

The Bulgarian authorities issued a second EAW for Tencho Gospodinov Tenev, after a judge ordered Tenev’s immediate release from custody last August, in view of the Maltese authorities’ failure to make the necessary arrangements to send him back within the 10 day period stipulated by law.

The return of the 47-year-old Bulgarian citizen to his home country is being requested so that he can serve a three-year prison sentence that he had received in connection with a 2013 rape conviction.

In May, a court of Magistrates had ordered his return to Bulgaria, but Tenez had filed an appeal. The appeal was rejected in July, after which the legal 10-day period for the man’s return was triggered. 

On 4 August, the last day of that period, the Attorney General had filed an urgent application for an extension to the 10 day period, stating that the Bulgarian authorities had insufficient human resources to escort the accused and because of difficulties encountered in obtaining permission to catch connecting flights.

Mr. Justice Aaron Bugeja had subsequently ordered Tenez’s release from custody, observing that it had been “entirely the obligation and within the control of the requesting country and Malta” that when requests for the transportation of requested persons are made, the travel arrangements for sending that person back are made in advance to allow the surrender of the requested person to take place within the legal timeframe.

Tenez was arraigned before magistrate Noel Bartolo on the strength of the new EAW. His lawyer Roberto Montalto, contested the request for his client’s return, telling the court that he did not give his consent to be extradited.

The court informed the parties that the case would be assigned to another magistrate in order to begin on November 28.

Montalto requested that his client be granted bail in the meantime. “The reason is a singular, simple one….An identical EAW procedure has already taken place and was decided in favour of my client and later confirmed on appeal. There was a mistake on the part of the requesting state, Bulgaria,” Montalto said.

He pointed out that the previous case was on the exact same merits and had been based on the same Bulgarian judgement on the strength of which the new EAW had been issued. 

Tenev had put down roots in Malta, and had a young family here, argued the lawyer, adding that the situation faced by his client was unjust.

“From the day of his release to date, he was aware of the possibility that the EAW could be reactivated, but in spite of this, had remained in Malta,” the lawyer pointed out.

The prosecution objected to the bail request, arguing that there was a clear indication from the Bulgarian authorities that the time Tenev had already spent in preventive custody in Malta would be deducted from his sentence.

It also objected due to the nature of the crime of which the man had already been convicted.

“He was convicted of rape in Bulgaria and is not presumed innocent. Although he does have family in Malta, he is staying in Malta illegally as his residence permit is invalid. This contributes to the fear that he may attempt to abscond.”

Montalto interjected to say that Tenev had a pending application for a residence permit.

The court was informed by the prosecution that the man is also the subject of other pending proceedings in Malta over cannabis possession, in which he is not under arrest.

Montalto told the court that the crime for which Tenev had been convicted took place in 1997.

Lawyer Marthese Grech, representing the Office of the Attorney General in the case explained that he had evaded justice for so long by remaining constantly on the move. “Justice was never served in this case,” she said.

Montalto retorted that the use of defence mechanisms inherent in the justice system itself, was not evasion of justice, adding that Malta’s highest court of criminal judicature had already pronounced itself on the case.

The court observed, however, that for all intents and purposes the case before it today was new, and after taking into account the nature of the charges, together with the documents exhibited by the prosecution, denied the request for bail, saying that the accused was not sufficiently trustworthy and could abscond from these islands.