Counsel’s email address and the appeal deadline

Positions of the trial and appellate courts: the trial court refused a correctional colony’s application to replace the unserved portion of a convicted person’s sentence with a more lenient punishment. Defence counsel appealed. The appellate court refused counsel’s application, made in the convicted person’s interests, to restore the appeal deadline and returned the appeal and accompanying materials.

In the cassation appeal, counsel alleged that the trial court had not sent the defence a copy of the challenged decision. Counsel stated that access to the case file through the Electronic Court subsystem was obtained on 13 March 2026 and that there were therefore valid reasons for missing the deadline.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court: the appellate ruling was upheld.

Reasoning of the Criminal Cassation Court: the panel stated that participants have a general duty to exercise procedural rights and perform procedural obligations in good faith; abuse of procedural rights is prohibited. The Criminal Procedure Code regulates certain communications between courts and participants through the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System under Articles 35(2), 135(1) and 136(1), and by email under Article 136(2). These rules concern transmission of copies of case materials, complaints, applications, motions and other statutory procedural documents submitted to the court and capable of judicial consideration, as well as summonses in criminal proceedings. In some cases specified by those provisions, a written request from the person is required.

The panel observed that a lawyer’s request for a copy of a decision to be sent to their email address entails a duty to receive the corresponding communications. A court communicating through the means specified by the participant therefore acts lawfully and in good faith.

The case materials showed that the trial court sent the challenged decision to counsel’s email address, as requested. Reliance on a change of work email address as grounds to restore the appeal deadline was therefore unfounded. When determining the restoration application, the appellate court reasonably found no valid reasons for missing the deadline, since no circumstances established that the reasons were objective.