Communicated on 3 November 2020 Published on 23 November 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43693/20 Patrick SPITERI against Malta lodged on 30 September 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Patrick Spiteri, is a Maltese national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Swieqi . He is represented before the Court by Dr S. Grech Prof Ian Refalo and Dr M. Refalo , lawyers practising in Valletta.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 15 May 2008 the applicant was questioned and on 29 August 2008 he was brought before the Court of Magistrates, as a court of criminal inquiry, charged with inter alia misappropriation of funds which occurred in 2007 and earlier.

Following a number of hearings which were not attended by the applicant, as of October 2010 evidence started to be collected via letters rogatory with different jurisdictions. On 16 July 2012 the prosecution declared it had no further evidence to submit.

The applicant no longer attended the criminal hearings and at a hearing of 16 June 2014 it resulted that the applicant had left to the U nited Kingdom, during which time he was suffering health conditions and considered that he was not fit to return to Malta.

On 20 October 2014 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant. Following extradition proceedings, the applicant returned to Malta in May 2017 and as of the next hearing a number of requests were lodged by the applicant mainly in relation to the collection of evidence. Around sixteen hearings took place until May 2019 when the proceedings were suspended sine die pending the outcome of constitutional redress proceedings lodged by the applicant.

On 26 April 2019 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining, inter alia , about the length of the criminal proceedings which were still ongoing.

By a judgment of 5 March 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional competence, rejected all the applicant ’ s claims on the merits. Concerning the length of proceedings, it considered that the starting point for the calculation had to be 2008 as the applicant had not proved that he had been investigated prior to the issuing of the charges against him. It noted that in 2012 the prosecution had submitted its evidence which it had collected following a number of letters rogatory to various foreign jurisdictions, which surely required some time. From then onwards it was for the applicant to submit his evidence, instead he fled the country and only returned in May 2017. During such period no steps could be taken in his absence and thus that delay had to be imputed to him, despite him having been absent on some occasions because of health reasons.

The applicant appealed, in particular concerning the length of proceedings he considered that the starting point had to be 2001 when he had been questioned by the Economic Crimes Unit in connection with money laundering.

On appeal by a judgment of 20 July 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal. In particular in relation to the complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings it considered that the starting point was 2008 as the interrogation in 2001 had nothing to do with the charge imputed to the applicant in the present case, in relation to which the applicant was only questioned on 15 May 2008. It noted further that, prior to 2010, the applicant failed to appear for at least eight hearings. Letters rogatory started being collected in October 2010 and by 16 July 2012 the prosecution had completed its submission of evidence. Those letters were sent to four jurisdictions thus the two years it took to complete them and over seventeen hearings to present them were reasonable. Following the applicant ’ s unauthorised departure, he was extradited back and since his return, in May 2017, around sixteen hearings too place. While the prosecutor was sometimes absent, the applicant had not objected to any requests by the prosecution for adjournment and had himself raised multiple unsubstantiated requests, including for adjournments, one of which for five months, a change of defence strategy, and a request for a constitutional reference. In the Constitutional Court ’ s view it had been evident that the applicant had highly contributed to the delay, thus, his complaint was unfounded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his criminal proceedings.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Is the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?