Romanian prince released on bail

A disputed member of Romanian royalty has been released on bail after spending two months in preventive custody while fighting extradition to Romania.

77-year-old Prince Paul Philip Al Romaniei, who also goes by the name of Paul Lambrino, is wanted to serve a prison sentence in his homeland after being convicted of corruption.

In May a Maltese court had rejected a request for his extradition to Romania, ruling that there was a real risk that he would face persecution and other fundamental rights breaches, were he to be returned.

But that decision was later overturned after his case was reassigned to another magistrate, as a result of an appeal filed by the Attorney General.

Lambrino’s lawyers had then filed constitutional proceedings to prevent what they said would be a breach of his fundamental rights.
Throughout those proceedings, Lambrino had remained in preventive custody. His lawyers had subsequently filed an application before the Court of Criminal Appeal, requesting his release on bail.

In a decision handed down this morning, that court, presided by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, upheld Lambrino’s request for bail, noting amongst other things, his conduct and the fact that the extradition proceedings against him had reached an advanced stage.

The judge said that the Attorney General had objected to bail primarily on the basis of the applicant’s lack of ties to the Maltese islands and the fact that he did not enjoy the presumption of innocence as he had already been convicted and sentenced abroad. 
The judge, however said that on the other hand, she could not ignore Lambrino’s advanced age and health conditions, together with the fact that he had a fixed place of residence in Malta.

The court upheld the request for bail, ordering Lambrino to sign a bail book twice every day, observe a curfew and to inform the police if he needed to be hospitalised.

His bail was secured by a €20,000 deposit and a €30,000 personal guarantee. Lawyers Jason Azzopardi, Kris Busietta and Alessandro Farrugia assisted Lambrino.

Lambrino, who lives in Italy, had been visiting Malta to attend an international ceremony organised by the Knights of St. John, during which ceremony he had been arrested on the strength of a European Arrest Warrant.

He had fled Romania in 2020 after being sentenced to three years and four months in jail by a Romanian court, which had found him and 17 other defendants guilty of having, together with a gang of con-artists, guilty of corruption-related offences, including trading in influence, as well as aiding and abetting a crime, when he attempted to “recover” properties which he claimed ownership of as heir to the Romanian royal family.

The Romanian State claims that Lambrino had no right to the properties, and estimated the damages caused to the State to be in the region of €145 million. Since then he has moved to Paris where he had previously successfully challenged a similar extradition request made by the Romanian authorities to the French courts.

Constitutional claim is dismissed

In separate proceedings which were also decided today, the Constitutional Court rejected Lambrino’s claim to have suffered a breach of his fundamental rights.

Despite that, the presiding judges said that the Extradition (Designated Foreign Countries) Order and the Extradition Act did not properly reflect the intention of the European Framework Decision and the EU Charter.

The wording of Maltese law indicated that there was no presumptive right to bail during EAW proceedings, said the court, opining that this issue had to be clarified.

But it was clear on the issue that courts of criminal jurisdiction handling EAW cases have the duty to decide whether the evidence showed a real risk of fundamental rights breaches were the person to be returned to the requesting country.

“It is a mistake to argue that [the Court of Magistrates and the Court of Criminal Appeal] lack the competence to examine and decide on whether there is a real risk of fundamental rights breaches…should [the requested person] be returned to the Member State which issued the EAW.”

That position was translating into a failure to implement EU law, including the EU Charter on Human Rights, and which could affect the proceedings, said the judges.