A complaint about the termination of a criminal case is, as a rule, filed by victims of unlawful inactions of the investigator to bring the perpetrators to justice.
ATTENTION: our criminal lawyer will help you competently draw up and present a complaint aimed at restoring justice in the case for the injured party.
How to initiate a criminal case?
To achieve the initiation of a criminal case against the offender, it is necessary, first of all, to file a statement with the police to initiate a case, and then act according to the situation.
If a case is initiated based on the application, the issue will be resolved.
If the initiation of a case is refused or the proceedings are terminated, then such refusal (termination) must be appealed to higher management, to the prosecutor’s office, or to the court.
It may be necessary to repeatedly file complaints, appeal against the actions (inactions) of the investigative authorities, but, in the end, the truth may be on your side and a criminal case will be initiated.
Where to go to appeal a criminal case?
One of the main questions that worries people in such situations is: where to go to appeal the initiation of a criminal case? After all, a complaint to higher authorities does not look very reliable: most likely, management will not want to understand the actions of their subordinates, and the decision will remain in force. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, a person against whom a criminal case has been initiated has two options - extrajudicial and judicial appeal. Let's take a closer look at each of the options.
Is it possible to appeal the initiation of a criminal case without going to court? Yes, of course, there is such an opportunity, but you won’t have to communicate with the investigator or his superiors. To do this, you need to file a complaint with the prosecutor at the place where the case was opened. However, it is also possible to file a complaint with the head of the investigative agency, but the likelihood of its satisfaction is very low. The prosecutor must respond to the complaint within 3 days (in some cases, if additional action is required, up to 10 days), and if the argument is convincing, the decision may be in favor of the accused.
However, in practice, out-of-court appeal is used quite rarely as it is ineffective, and it is better to immediately go to court. It is also possible to go to court after receiving a refusal from the prosecutor or the head of the investigative body. A complaint is filed with the court of general jurisdiction at the place of registration of the accused. The appeal must be considered by the court no later than 5 days after receiving the complaint. The exact time is communicated when filing an application at the court office.
In what cases is a complaint filed to terminate a criminal case?
This complaint is filed against a decision to terminate criminal proceedings issued by the investigative, inquiry, and prosecutor's offices. A decision to terminate criminal proceedings is made in cases where there is no crime, there is no corpus delicti in the acts, in the event of the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution and on other grounds.
The result of the above decision is the automatic termination of criminal prosecution against the suspect (accused). The victims, their legal representatives, and defenders (lawyers) cannot agree with this injustice and illegal actions of public authorities; our line of work is protecting the victim especially for such victims (read more at the link).
Complaint about violation of reasonable time limits for investigation of a criminal case
Klin City Prosecutor of the Moscow Region, Counselor of Justice P.V. Seliverstov.
from __________________________, lawyer of MCA "Legis Group" Moscow, 4th Lesnoy per., 4, Business tel.: _________________________ e-mail: _________________________ acting in the interests of G., victim in criminal case No. 98140
COMPLAINT
for violation of reasonable time limits for the investigation of a criminal case
On October 31, 2014, the investigator of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Klinsky district opened criminal case No. 98140 on the fact of causing
07/05/2014 gr. G. bodily injuries in the form of an apical fracture of the lateral malleolus without displacement, which is regarded as harm to health of moderate severity.
On 04/02/2015, the investigator of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Klinsky District made a decision to suspend the preliminary inquiry in this criminal case on the basis provided for in paragraph 1 (2) of Part 1 of Art. 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, that is, due to the failure to identify the persons involved in the crime committed.
On August 24, 2015, I appealed this resolution to the Klin city prosecutor.
09/02/2015 The Klin City Prosecutor's Office satisfied the complaint in full: the appealed decision of the investigator was canceled on 09/03/2015, the criminal case was sent for additional investigation, the response of the prosecutor's office also emphasized that the fact of red tape on the part of the investigator was established.
Despite the measures taken by the prosecutor's office, the rights and legitimate interests of my client have not yet been restored, and those responsible for the crime have not received the punishment provided for by law.
I have previously studied this criminal case, and I believe that there is enough evidence in the case to expose the perpetrators.
- Victim G., having been warned of criminal liability for knowingly false denunciation, in his statement asked to evaluate the actions of the gr. YES. and D.I., who caused him bodily harm on 07/05/2014 (case file 3). Based on the testimony of the victim G. himself, witnesses Ch., M., the young son of the victim G., D., the above injuries were caused to G. as a result of a sudden hostile relationship. The very fact of the conflict is not denied by D. The possibility of causing damage to the victim according to the scenario described by G. is also confirmed by forensic medical examination No. 356 (case sheets 141-146). Moreover, the psychophysiological study of witness D.I. (ld. 220-229) showed that D.I. struck the victim in the leg, causing him a fracture, that he deliberately says the opposite, in order to avoid responsibility, and so that his father, D.A., avoids responsibility. Thus, I believe that the inquiry has already collected a sufficient amount of evidence to bring the perpetrators to criminal liability; there are no grounds for distrusting the testimony of the victim and witnesses in the case.
- In the materials of the criminal case there is no information about the execution of the written instructions of the prosecutor; to date, the material characterizing D. has not been fully collected.
- Upon reviewing the certificate from D.’s psychophysiological study, it was established that the latter did not actually answer the questions posed, it was not possible to establish the truth of his judgments, the expert recommended a repeat study using a polygraph, which has not been prescribed or carried out to date.
After the response from the prosecutor's office in early September 2015, the investigator did not notify about the results of the investigation of this case, my client is kept in the dark so that the deadline for criminal prosecution expires. In connection with the above, I believe that the investigator deliberately violated the reasonable time frame for investigating a criminal case, provided for in Art. 6.1 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
On the basis of the above,
ASK:
- Check the legality and validity of the decision made in criminal case No. 98140;
- Check the investigator’s compliance with the previously given instructions of the prosecutor’s office in the specified criminal case; if necessary, I ask you to take prosecutorial response measures
- Take for your personal control the progress of the investigation of criminal case No. 98140, due to the fact that the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Klinsky district and the Klin city prosecutor's office, due to the latter's inaction, violated the reasonable time frame for the investigation of the criminal case provided for in Art. 6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and control the adoption of a legal and justified final decision on it, as well as eliminate possible red tape.
- Notify me of the results of consideration of this complaint by e-mail within the period prescribed by law. Enclosure: copy of the warrant for 1 sheet, copy of the complaint to the prosecutor's office for 2 sheets, copy of the response from the prosecutor's office for 3 sheets.
«__» ___________2016 _________________
Grounds for canceling a decision to terminate a criminal case
The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation specifies two grounds for canceling a decision that terminated a criminal case, if the decision is illegal or the decision is unfounded.
But the decision may be illegal or unfounded because the investigator:
- the circumstances of the case are incorrectly determined
- the decision was made without any reasoning
- if not all circumstances of the case have been clarified
- persons who have information on the crime committed were not interrogated
- documents and evidence of the crime committed were not requested from third parties or government agencies
- there are contradictions in the explanations between the persons already interviewed
- if there are other circumstances of the case that can be clarified with the help of our lawyer for the protection of the rights of the victim in Yekaterinburg
Thus, the investigator can terminate a criminal case for various reasons, but it is not a fact that such termination will be legal.
How to file a complaint against the termination of a criminal case?
The person who makes a decision to terminate criminal proceedings must indicate the grounds for making such a decision.
When filing a complaint you must:
- assign a criminal legal analysis of the decision made by the investigation
- examine the evidence collected in the case
- study the testimony of all participants in criminal proceedings, and if there are insufficient grounds for canceling the decision, it is necessary to conduct a lawyer's investigation in order to establish new facts that were ignored by the investigation or simply went unnoticed, to identify new witnesses to the crime.
The complaint must contain the maximum number of specific facts on which the investigative authorities made an incorrect decision; it is necessary to reflect all the rules of law that were violated during the preliminary investigation and during investigative actions.
IMPORTANT: the main thing when preparing a complaint is its motivation, taking into account the rules of law, why the refusal to initiate a case or its termination, in the opinion of the applicant, is illegal or unfounded.
complaint (appeal) under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation
To the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court
Applicant: Lawyer S.V. Chernov, in the interests of client XXXXX
Interested person: Investigator for the Department of Internal Affairs of the SCh for the OPD of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Eastern Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Moscow XXXXX
Appeal against the decision of the Izmailovsky Court
In the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a complaint was filed to recognize the Resolution of the investigator of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Directorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the VAO Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Moscow XXXXXXXXX dated February 22, 2019 on the drawing up of an indictment in criminal case No. XXXXXXX, initiated on March 1, 2021 on the grounds of a crime under Part 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sending it for approval to the head of the investigative body, illegal and unfounded. The court, by its Resolution, refused to accept the complaint for proceedings, citing the fact that an allegedly similar complaint was satisfied by the deputy head of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Eastern Administrative District - the head of the IC, who issued a decision to return the criminal case for additional investigation in connection with the identified violations, in connection with which it was established the investigation period is one month from the date the case was received by the investigator and, accordingly, there is no subject of appeal. In fact, this decision of the investigator was not appealed to either the prosecutor or the head of the investigative body in accordance with Article 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the Court, in violation of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 10, 2009 No. 1 “On the practice of courts considering complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation”, issued the appealed resolution in the course of preparation for the court hearing with the motivation for the cancellation of the appealed resolution dated January 19, 2019 by the head of the IC.
By this Resolution, the Court is in violation of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and paragraph 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Articles 15-16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RF, did not provide the Complainant with the right to judicial protection on the basis of a fair trial, which implies ensuring adversarial rights and equality of the parties, including the provision of sufficient procedural powers to protect their interests in the implementation of all procedural actions.
The basis for filing a complaint in accordance with Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation was the illegal actions of the investigator, who, in order to extend the period of preliminary investigation in a criminal case beyond 12 months, bypassing the law provided for in Part 5 of Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, sent the above Resolution to the head of the Investigative Unit Investigation in accordance with Part 6 of Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In the Resolution, the investigator indicated false information about the alleged failure of the accused to appear within the established time frame to familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case in accordance with Articles 215-217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the applicant of the complaint was not invited by any summons or telephone message to participate in this investigative action.
The applicant came to the VAO Department every day, presented his passport to the security officer at the checkpoint, and personal information was entered into the log. I believe that the investigator committed this abuse, since the extension of the investigation period beyond 12 months in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by the head of the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation is allowed when investigating a criminal case that is particularly complex. And in this case, no investigative actions were taken with the accused for more than five months. The fact that these actions of the investigator are an abuse of the Law is also evidenced by the assessment of the norm of paragraph 6 of Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Determinations of July 2, 2015 No. 1541-O, 1542-O and No. 1543-O. There is no evidence of the defendant’s failure to appear to familiarize himself with the case, other than the unfounded statements of the investigator. Significant violations of the rights of the accused continue throughout the entire period of the preliminary investigation: the investigator never once violated paragraph 8 of Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation set out in the Determinations of December 18, 2003 No. 429-O and of April 16, 2009 No. 386-O not only did not provide the opportunity to become familiar with the decisions on the progress of the criminal case, but did not even notify either the applicant of the complaint or the defense attorneys. All of these violations are significant and deprive not only the accused, but also other participants in the process from enjoying their procedural rights. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 389.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation “The grounds for canceling or changing a court decision by a court of appeal are significant violations of the criminal procedural law, which, by depriving or limiting the rights of participants in criminal proceedings guaranteed by this Code, non-compliance with the judicial procedure, or in any other way, influenced or could influence the issuance of a lawful and justified judicial solutions". Taking into account the above, guided by Articles 389.1-389.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, I ask
.Cancel the Resolution of the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow dated February 30, 2021, satisfying the applicant’s complaint in the criminal case.
S.V. Chernov
Deadline for filing a complaint against a decision to terminate a criminal case
A complaint against a decision to terminate a criminal case may be filed with the prosecutor's office or with a higher investigative body in accordance with Art. 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as to the district court in accordance with Art. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The decision to terminate the case may be appealed within the period specified in the relevant decision, which is 10 days .
The period for appeal should begin from the moment the person learned that the case was terminated.
However, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not indicate specific deadlines for appealing a decision to terminate a criminal case. At the same time, there is no point in delaying filing a complaint, especially if the decision specifies a deadline for appeal, stick to 10 days or restore the missed procedural deadline, more about this in our VIDEO
The court actually indicated the impossibility of appealing against the prosecutor’s actions in court
June 25, 2021 4:09 pm
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refused to consider complaints from the lawyer of the AP KBR Diana Tsipinova about a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation published
Resolution No. 920-O dated May 27, 2021 on the refusal to accept for consideration complaints from the lawyer of the Administrative Office of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic Diana Tsipinova regarding a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (as reported , in April of this year the defenders of Diana Tsipinova - FPA adviser Nver Gasparyan and lawyer of KA IC "Zakon" Olga Chudentseva - prepared several complaints to the Constitutional Court after two courts refused to recognize as illegal the investigator's refusal to question the defense witness and continue the confrontation between the accused and the victim). As the Court explained, the applicant appealed the investigation’s refusals only to the first and appellate instances, and not to the cassation, therefore her complaint cannot be the subject of its consideration. In a commentary to “ AG ”, Diana Tsipinova noted that the Constitutional Court actually indicated the impossibility of appealing against the actions of the prosecutor in accordance with Art.
125 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Its representative, adviser to the FPA RF Nver Gasparyan, believes that such a position of the Court is unlikely to contribute to the protection of the violated rights of participants in criminal proceedings who are faced with a clear accusatory bias on the part of the procedural tandem “investigator - prosecutor” and are forced to seek objective judicial protection. Reasons for appealing investigator’s refusals
At the end of 2021, the defense of Diana Tsipinova, accused under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, petitioned the investigation to call investigator Murat Adamokov, who had previously handled a criminal case against the lawyer, for questioning as a witness.
As the defense noted, in the decision to refuse the petition to terminate the criminal case, Adamokov indicated: “After Diana Tsipinova was expelled from the building of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Urvansky district, the latter tried to return to the police building with the sole purpose of returning her cell phone.” Thus, according to the defense, the investigator still recognized the important circumstance that the lawyer’s mobile phone fell during her expulsion from the department, was picked up by a police officer and was in his possession, and the lawyer tried to pick up the phone at the police department.
The defense added that such a conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the resolution to implicate Diana Tsipinova as an accused, subsequently issued by the new investigator in this case, Alexander Tiridatov: “...pushing away the police officers, she tried to enter the building of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Urvansky district, grabbing the police officers with her hands and pushing them aside." In this resolution, the defense emphasized, there is no mention of the client’s intentions to take away the illegally held phone.
Nevertheless, by a resolution dated December 20, 2021, Alexander Tiridatov refused to satisfy the petition. He noted that the defense attorneys did not indicate what issues the required investigative action should clarify. “In addition, Adamokov was not an eyewitness to these events. Accordingly, the circumstances provided for in Art. 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which must be established during the preliminary investigation, are unknown to him,” the resolution noted.
In addition, on December 14 of the same year, Alexander Tiridatov conducted a confrontation between Diana Tsipinova and the victim Timur Nagoev. During the investigation, the investigator dismissed 66 questions asked of the victim by the defense as not related to the essence of the investigative action. In this regard, the defense petitioned to continue the confrontation, ensuring the right of the accused to ask questions to the victim and receive answers to them. By a resolution dated December 27, Tiridatov refused to satisfy the petition, citing the fact that the defense asked questions that were not related to the essence of the confrontation or the answers to which were given to the victims earlier.
Nver Gasparyan and Olga Chudentseva appealed the investigator’s refusals in court in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (AG has both complaints). One of them noted that the testimony of Murat Adamokov as a witness is important for the criminal case and will help establish an important circumstance that eliminates the criminality of the act. Another complaint stated that the questions asked by Diana Tsipinova and her defenders were aimed at establishing the innocence of the accused, establishing the event of the crime and the circumstances excluding the criminality and punishability of the act, as well as the guilt of the police officers, and therefore were important for the case.
The court saw no reason to interfere with the actions of the investigator
On January 15, 2021, judge of the Essentuki Court Olga Frolova refused to satisfy complaints with identical motivation. Both judicial acts indicate that the defense's complaints are aimed at assessing the investigation's refusals to carry out procedural actions.
Subsequently, Nver Gasparyan appealed these decisions, the complaints were considered in the Stavropol Regional Court. In the appeal ruling dated March 30 regarding the legality of the investigator’s refusal to question investigator Adamokov as a witness, the appeal recalled that the court should not prejudge issues that may subsequently become the subject of trial on the merits of the criminal case. The Court of Appeal found that the contested actions of the investigator are procedural and related to the collection of evidence, and therefore are not the subject of consideration under Art. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The Stavropol Regional Court also found no grounds for satisfying the defense's complaint against the ruling recognizing as legal the investigator's refusal to continue the confrontation between the accused and the victim. The appeal ruling dated April 2 noted that the limits of judicial control under Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are limited taking into account the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and the procedural independence of the investigator, enshrined in Art. 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, to which only the head of the investigative body has the right to give instructions, to which, by virtue of Art. 124 of the Code, you can file a complaint against the actions (inaction) of the investigator.
Contents of complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
Diana Tsipinova's defense prepared four complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, two of which were eventually sent to the Court. The first concerned challenging Part 4 of Art. 7, Art. 123 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation to the extent that these norms in the context of law enforcement practice allow the courts not to consider in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code, a complaint by participants in criminal proceedings against the actions (inaction) of the investigator who issued an unmotivated and unfounded decision to refuse to terminate the criminal case.
Drawing up a complaint about the termination of a criminal case in Yekaterinburg
A complaint about the termination of a criminal case is one of the most effective levers for protecting the victim in restoring violated rights to access to justice; it is an opportunity to bring the perpetrator to criminal liability.
You cannot put off protecting your rights until tomorrow; it is impossible to allow a guilty person to avoid criminal punishment for the act committed..
Call our criminal lawyer at the Law Office “Katsailidi and Partners” right now and he will help you make the competent authorities work and bring the guilty person to justice. A complaint regarding a criminal case will be drawn up for you in the shortest possible time and to achieve the desired result.
HOME
You are on the personal website of criminal and civil lawyer Wigand Alexander Viktorovich. You can see the location of the lawyer's office HERE.
What can you find on the site
The main sections of the site are sections corresponding to the areas of activity of a lawyer, these are criminal and civil cases, as well as administrative cases. Each section has a main page on which information about the contents of the section is posted, as well as a description of the contents of the subsections.
In the subsections you will find articles on various areas of legal topics, and you will also be offered convenient and practical advice on how to act in certain circumstances. General concepts are given about the stages and forms of criminal and administrative proceedings, types of legal proceedings in civil cases, the procedure for appealing court decisions and actions of officials, samples of some documents and much more.
The main areas of my activity
The qualifications of a lawyer presuppose the ability to work in any category of cases; this is the main difference between a lawyer and an ordinary lawyer; the main thing for a lawyer is the ability to work in the process. The main areas of my activity are consulting, as well as defense in criminal cases and representation in civil cases. During his practice as a lawyer, he dealt with various categories of cases, including administrative and arbitration.
All lawyers are divided into those who handle criminal cases and those who do not handle these cases. I deal with criminal defense during preliminary investigations and in court, as well as at the stage of appealing a verdict.
Why did I create this site?
The main purpose of creating the site is the intention to convey to people in need of legal assistance the basic ways and techniques of protecting their rights. The articles and sample documents posted on the site are based on professional knowledge and many years of legal practice. I hope that my knowledge will be useful to you.
The site is not a way to advertise legal services and the information posted in content and form complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers.
When working on new articles, I strive to make them useful, the way readers want them to be. Therefore, I would be grateful if you write a couple of lines with your wishes to my email address.
My philosophy
Due to the nature of my work, I often have to deal with legal insecurity of the individual. The very presence of Constitutional human rights does not adequately protect him from administrative arbitrariness and injustice. Despite this, there are certain legal methods for protecting legitimate interests, knowledge and skillful application of which yield positive results.
In life, not everyone uses their legal rights to the fullest, and often they are not aware of the existence of certain rights. Each of us wants to live in a state in which an independent judiciary is declared a condition for the creation of civil society. Everyone should have the opportunity to defend and defend their interests, turning to the rules of the law and the concept of justice.
It can be very difficult to defend your rights, and even more difficult to restore. As a rule, it all depends on what you are faced with, what the moral character, resources and motivation of the opposite side are. Some people think it’s easier not to do this. Everyone must decide for themselves whether they are ready to defend their rights and to what extent they need it.
I will never tell a client that I will definitely win a case and I will not take on a case knowing that it is doomed to failure. If I cannot provide assistance, I will advise you on how to choose a lawyer.
You can ask your question to a lawyer or write a message in the contacts section.
Consultation is required, help from a lawyer, call:
8-918-938-07-77; 8-928-471-39-91
Lawyer Wigand Alexander Viktorovich
