Delaying the consideration of private complaints by repeatedly giving time to bring the complaint into line
The study of private prosecution cases has established the facts of prolonged non-acceptance of private complaints to the court, and their repeated referrals to eliminate deficiencies on formal grounds. As an example, we can point out the actions of the judge of the Petropavlovsk City Court on the complaint of the private prosecutor Z. on bringing K. and P. to criminal responsibility under part 1 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code), submitted to the court on December 21, 2015. By the decision of the said court dated December 23, 2015 on the complaint of the private prosecution Z. A procedural decision was taken not provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure to leave the complaint without motion, in the same decision Z. was given until January 06, 2016 to bring the complaint in line with the requirements of the law. The court stated that the complaint does not contain the time and place of the commission of the criminal offense, and it does not specify what exactly was the dissemination of deliberately false information discrediting Z.'s honor and dignity and undermining his reputation. On January 05, 2016, Z., having fulfilled the requirements of the court, provided an addendum to the complaint of the private prosecution. By a court order dated January 11, 2016, Z.'s complaint Taking into account the addendum to the complaint, it was again left without movement and he was given a second deadline until January 19, 2016 to bring the complaint into line with the requirements of the law.
Delaying the consideration of private complaints by repeatedly giving time to bring the complaint into line
In this ruling, the court reasoned its decision by the fact that the complaint and the addendum to the complaint did not specify exactly what the dissemination of deliberately false information, discrediting honor and dignity, and undermining reputation consisted of. Z. On January 18, 2016, a new version of the private prosecution complaint was submitted to the court, taking into account the shortcomings indicated in the court's ruling. However, by a court order dated January 21, 2016, Z.'s private prosecution complaint was refused. Meanwhile, according to part 1 of Article 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (dale - CPC), only if the judge fails to comply with the judge's instructions to bring the complaint into compliance with the requirements of the law by the person who filed it, the judge by his decision refuses to accept the complaint for proceedings and notifies the person who filed it. The Court of Appeal of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court found that on January 05, 2016 and January 18, 2016 Z. Pursuant to the judge's orders to bring the complaint of the private prosecution in line with the requirements of part 2 of Article 408 of the CPC, additions to the private complaint were filed, which contain a description of the criminal offense, including what was the dissemination and what kind of false information discrediting the honor and dignity of Z., undermining his reputation. The requirements of part 2 of Article 408 of the CPC Z. were fulfilled, and there were no grounds for refusing to accept a complaint from a private prosecution. By the resolution of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court dated February 25, 2016, the resolution Petropavlovsk City Court of January 21, 2016, on the refusal to accept the complaint of the private prosecution Z. cancelled with referral to the same court for a decision.
There are facts of refusal to accept a private complaint in the absence of any grounds for that. Thus, by the decree of the court No. 2 of the city of Pavlodar dated March 14, 2016, P. a deadline has been provided for bringing the complaint of a private prosecution in line with the requirements of the law until March 24, 2016, which states that the complaint lacks sufficient information about the person being held criminally responsible, a description of the place and event of the criminal offense, evidence, including the conclusion of a forensic medical examination, and a request to the court for When the case was accepted for trial, copies of the complaint regarding the number of persons prosecuted were not provided. However, there is no information confirming the court's referral of paragraph of this resolution. In addition, it can be seen from the content of the complaint that it describes the place, time and event of the criminal offense, sets out a request to the court to accept the complaint for trial, and attached to the private complaint was the conclusion of the forensic medical examination expert No. 207 dated February 12, 2016 in respect of P., an extract with detailed personal data of the person involved criminally responsible – M. In addition, the judge did not take into account that in part 1 of Article 409 of the CPC, the legislator indicated the need for the complaint to comply with the requirements of part 2 of Article 408 of the CPC, which does not require copies of complaints on the number of persons prosecuted. This requirement is provided for in part 4 of Article 408 of the CPC and is not a reason for refusing to accept a complaint, since it relates to the technical design of the complaint and can be eliminated in court. Thus, by the decree of the court No. 2 of the city of Pavlodar dated March 25, 2016, in accepting the complaint of the private prosecution, P. refused on far-fetched grounds. By the same court's decision of March 4, 2016, I. was given until March 14, 2016 to correct the shortcomings, although the private complaint complies with the requirements of part 2 of Article 408 of the CPC, which, moreover, was not sent to the author of the complaint of the private prosecution. By the judge's decision of March 15, 2016, I. was unreasonably refused to accept the complaint. This decision was also not sent to the applicant. The examples given indicate that the judge did not study the content of private complaints, and did not pay attention to the specific requirements of the law for complaints of private prosecution. Such examples are not isolated. On similar grounds, unreasonably, in the presence of the necessary documents attached to the materials, the judges of the court No. 2 of the city of Pavlodar refused to accept complaints of private prosecution – by a decision of October 18, 2016 on L.'s complaint, by a decision of October 31, 2016 on L.'s complaint.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
