The subject of the judgment commented on is an inadmissibility decision rendered by the appeals commission of judicial police officers. However, it does not relate so much to disciplinary litigation as to the procedure applicable when exercising an appeal. It is therefore important not to misunderstand the scope of the judgment, which is intended to impact the entire procedure and which has numerous practical implications.
The irregularity of the request and its lack of interruptive effect
The first part of the reasons of the Court of Cassation does not lend itself to criticism. It is in fact widely accepted that irregular acts receive procedural sanction even if the text prescribing the ignored formality does not expressly provide for it. This is for example the case of so-called “virtual” nullities, the sanction of substantial formalities which are however not prescribed on pain of nullity by the code of criminal procedure (J. Danet, Brief remarks on the typology and implementation of nullities, Criminal AJ 2005. 133 ). What is surprising is the sanction adopted by the criminal chamber. In principle, failure to comply with the formality of a procedural act is punishable by nullity for formal defects (even if it must be recognized that the distinction between formal defects and substantive irregularities is not really effective in criminal proceedings) . However, the criminal chamber does not accept this sanction. Rather, she considers that the request without a signature is powerless to refer the matter to the commission.
Initially, one could consider that this is a shortcut, based on the idea that the annulment of an act initiating proceedings…
