Facts
The case concerns a dispute between two associates, A and B, in a cheese company. B filed a criminal complaint against A for disloyal management, fraud, breach of trust, and forgery in titles. The Public Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation and appointed two experts, C and D, to analyze the company's management.
During the hearing, B stated that he had known expert C for years and that C had warned him about the company's difficulties. A requested the recusal of expert C and the withdrawal of the file from the expertise, but the Police Court rejected these requests.
A then filed a criminal appeal against the Police Court's decision, requesting the recusal of expert C and the withdrawal of the procedural acts in which the expert had participated. The Criminal Appeals Chamber admitted the request for recusal of expert C, but limited the withdrawal of procedural acts to the expert report of September 4, 2014.
A then filed a criminal appeal against the decision of the Criminal Appeals Chamber, requesting the withdrawal of several other procedural acts. The Federal Court declared the appeal inadmissible due to a lack of irreparable harm.
Considerations
The Federal Court considered that the contested decision only ruled on the consequences of the admission of the recusal request, and not on the recusal itself. Consequently, the appeal could only be examined from the angle of art. 93 al. 1 let. a FSCA, which requires proof of irreparable harm.
The Federal Court also considered that art. 60 al. 1 CrimPC allows for the annulment and repetition of procedural acts in which a person required to recuse themselves has participated, but that this request must be made at the latest five days after the party in question has become aware of the recusal decision.
In this case, the appellant did not demonstrate the existence…