Malta

Even though the European Arrest Warrant may be considered among the acts essential for understanding the charges, the protection of the defence rights of a foreign-language requested person does not require the written translation of the documents of the surrender proceedings, where the understanding of their content is ensured through the assistance of an interpreter. In the present case, moreover, the appellant did not in any way argue that, at the time of arrest, he had not been provided with the information and notifications referred to in Article 12 of Law No. 69, and, on the contrary, he consistently benefited from the assistance of an interpreter.

The fact that the copies officially transmitted by the issuing authority do not bear a judge’s signature on the underlying custodial measure is not a ground of invalidity, nor does it, in itself, render the European Arrest Warrant unenforceable. The purpose of the relevant provision is not a purely formalistic one—i.e., to ensure the presence of such a signature in any event—but rather to verify that, among the various judicial authorities empowered to issue a European Arrest Warrant (which, in some foreign legal systems, may even be the public prosecutor, since Article 6 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA leaves it to each Member State to designate the competent authority), it is certain that the underlying custodial measure sought to be enforced was issued by a judge. In the present case, since the EAW was issued by the same judicial office that ordered the coercive measure, the fact that the certification of the warrant’s issuance bears only the signature of the clerk of that same judicial office is of no relevance. It does not cast doubt on the fact that the custodial order was adopted and reviewed by a judge of that court, nor that the European Arrest Warrant was issued by that very judicial authority.