The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found no breach of Patrick Spiteri's rights in his arrest.

In 2008 Spiteri was charged with fraud, misappropriation of funds and forgery of public documents. A European arrest warrant had been issued as he failed to appear at several hearings. The case concerned his subsequent detention following his extradition from the United Kingdom, and the restriction, in particular, on his leaving the Maltese islands.

The applicant - Patrick Spiteri - submitted that his arrest and detention in Malta following the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) (i.e., between 31 May 2017 and 22 December 2017) was in breach of Article 5 because the arrest effected by means of the EAW had not been in accordance with law, and therefore it could not produce any effects, the ECHR noted. The applicant also said that he should not have been detained.

Among other things, Spiteri submitted that an EAW had to be preceded by a national arrest warrant, "but in the present case no separate national warrant had been issued against him by the Maltese authorities."

"In the applicant's view, a Part III warrant (which had been issued) was one and the same as the EAW, and not a replacement to a national warrant which should be issued under Article 355V of the Criminal Code. This was evident given that it was issued under the Extradition Act and because it's wording precisely stated that it was being issued so that the applicant 'is arrested and extradited to Malta for him to be prosecuted'. It was therefore not a classic order for the applicant to be arrested and detained in Malta. In the applicant's view, the fact that it was one and the same was also clear from the fact that the Framework Decision required the EAW to be a judicial decision, however the EAW Form was not such a decision given that it was compiled administratively and was not signed by a judge."

The ECHR noted that the matter in dispute is whether the applicant's detention during that period had been based on a valid arrest warrant. "In this connection the Court notes that, despite their pleadings at the domestic level and the findings of the courts of criminal jurisdiction at the time, before the Court, the Government have not disputed that the EAW's effects were extinguished the moment the applicant had been brought before a judge in Malta and therefore the EAW could not serve as the basis for his detention subsequently. Given that the applicant's complaint concerns solely the period subsequent to his extradition to Malta, the issue of whether the EAW was a valid arrest warrant is inconsequential."

The Court, among other things, observes that, from the minutes of the hearing of 31 May 2017 it does not appear that on that day the Magistrate made any order for the applicant's detention, or any considerations in its relation, given the absence of a request for bail. "In consequence, the question remains whether a valid national arrest warrant existed, independently of the EAW, which could provide a legal basis for the applicant's detention. In other words, whether the Part III warrant issued in respect of the applicant amounted to a national arrest warrant or to the EAW (which could not be the basis of his detention). The parties' have diverging views about this, as did the courts of constitutional jurisdiction on two levels. The findings of the courts of criminal jurisdiction entered into no such specific assessment, and thus provide no explicit guidance on the matter."

The Court said that it considers that the mere fact that the Part III warrant was not an ordinary arrest warrant issued under the Criminal Code has no bearing on its validity as a national arrest warrant. "While it is clear that a person present in the Maltese territory would be sought by means of a traditional arrest warrant under the Criminal Code, there is nothing anomalous in the fact that the arrest of a person outside its territory would be sought by means of a national arrest warrant under the legislation dealing with extradition, requesting both a person's arrest and extradition. As noted by the Constitutional Court, the Part III warrant, had a basis in domestic law, was addressed to the Commissioner of Police, not another Member State, and it was issued for the purpose of, inter alia, arresting the applicant and 'maintaining him in custody' with the aim of him appearing before a court to be prosecuted. It was on that basis that the Constitutional Court concluded that it amounted to a national arrest warrant."

Following further arguments, the court said that "it follows that the applicant's detention from 31 May 2017 to 22 December 2017 must be considered as having a basis in domestic law and having been ordered in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, it was therefore lawful."

The court found no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Spiteri had also complained that the restrictions on his freedom of movement had been unlawful and in violation of his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. The court noted that the authorities had reason to be apprehensive about the possibility of the applicant's fleeing. "The applicant had already fled overseas (irrespective of what reason had led him to do so) and failed to appear for trial, which necessitated his extradition from the United Kingdom which he also tried to evade and which undoubtedly delayed the criminal proceedings. This was certainly sufficient to ju"

The Court said that it is not indifferent to the fact that the proceedings started nearly twenty years ago, in relation to offences which occurred a decade prior. "However, it does not appear that the delay was due to the authorities, quite the opposite, the applicant having been uncooperative, having absconded and tried to evade justice. Moreover, the case concerned serious crimes and necessitated international judicial cooperation and therefore can be considered as being relatively complex. Lastly, the Court cannot but note that the major argument brought forward by the applicant five years ago in the request lodged in 2019, and again before this Court, is that he could not find any job in Malta, an argument this Court (like the domestic courts) has little sympathy with, public data showing that Malta has consistently had a low declared unemployment rate (of around 3%)."

"Bearing in mind all the above and particularly the fact that no information has been brought to the Court's attention about any further attempts to seek permission to leave, and if so whether they were or not granted while the measure remained in place, in the last five years (since 2019), the Court considers that a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the applicant's rights was achieved. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention."

Lastly, Spiteri complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court failed to examine and give reasons in connection with his request to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The court found that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1.