Appealing an investigating judge’s ruling: requirements for the appeal

Positions of the trial and appellate courts: an investigating judge refused to open proceedings on the applicant’s complaint about inaction by State Bureau of Investigation investigators. The appellate court returned the applicant’s appeal because it did not meet Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the cassation appeal, the applicant argued that the appellate court had disregarded the fact that the investigating judge’s ruling was appealable and had therefore breached the Code by returning the appeal.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court: the appellate ruling was set aside and a fresh appellate hearing was ordered.

Reasoning of the Criminal Cassation Court: the panel noted that the appellate court had returned the appeal as non-compliant with Article 396 because it allegedly contained no reasoning explaining why the challenged decision was unlawful or unfounded. The request to set aside the ruling and require proceedings to be opened was said to be inconsistent with the appellate court’s statutory powers. The appellate ruling also stated that the appeal omitted the full title of the first-instance ruling, preventing the court from deciding whether it was appealable, accepting the appeal and listing it for a hearing.

The panel disagreed with that conclusion.

Certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Cassation Court’s established practice do indeed mean that an appellate court cannot hold an appeal against an investigating judge’s decision pending correction of defects. That does not justify requirements not prescribed by law or excessively formalistic standards concerning the clarity, precision, logic or consistency of the appeal’s contents.

The appeal identified the challenged decision sufficiently clearly: the applicant attached a copy and stated that the attached ruling was the one being appealed.

The appeal also made sufficiently clear that the applicant considered the trial court’s ruling unlawful because the original complaint met Articles 303–307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the local court to open proceedings and examine all the circumstances directly at a hearing.

The appeal further showed that the applicant disputed the ruling because the complaint to the local court concerned non-compliance with Article 220, whereas the court, allegedly manipulating the legislation, had treated the complaint as defective.