Facts

Parties and procedural context:

The Central Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Canton of Vaud, Special Affairs Division (prosecuting authority) initiated criminal proceedings against defendant A. (born 15 February 1982, Syrian national) for charges of aggravated simple bodily harm, qualified assault and qualified threats. The alleged offences involved repeated physical and verbal assaults committed between January 2020 and November 2022 against his spouse, B., at the marital home.

On 18 November 2022, the Court of Pre-Trial Detention ordered A.’s pre-trial detention, later replaced by alternative measures: a ban on contacting B., a prohibition from approaching the family home and an obligation to attend a violence prevention programme. These measures were partially lifted, except for the last one, which was extended until 30 July 2023.

On 1 May 2023, the Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the parties of its intention to issue a penal order and set a deadline of 22 May 2023 for the submission of determinations. On 22 May 2023, A.’s court-appointed defence counsel and B.’s legal representative jointly applied for a suspension of proceedings under Art. 55a para. 1 TSOA. c SCC for a period of six months, citing B.’s wish not to pursue her husband and to terminate the proceedings. On the same day, the Public Prosecutor’s Office rejected this request by reasoned order, citing the insufficient duration of the proposed suspension in light of the defendant’s personal situation.

On 11 September 2023, the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court upheld A.’s appeal against this order, annulling it for a violation of the right to be heard (insufficient reasoning) and remitting the matter to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for reconsideration. Costs and expenses were awarded against the State of Vaud.

On 1 November 2023, the Deputy Attorney General of the Vaud Public Prosecutor’s Office filed an appeal in criminal matters against the judgment of 11 September 2023, seeking a declaration of inadmissibility of A.’s appeal and an order for him to bear the costs of the cantonal proceedings. B. did not participate in the proceedings. The Federal Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declared A.’s appeal against the order of 30 May 2023 inadmissible and remitted the matter to the cantonal authority for a new decision on costs and expenses.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal against a decision refusing to suspend criminal proceedings under Art. 55a SCC. According to the systematics of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (CrimPC), decisions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in procedural matters are generally subject to appeal, except where expressly excluded by law (Art. 393 para. 1 TSOA. a CrimPC). The Court recalled that case law recognises the admissibility of appeals against decisions refusing suspension, in particular under Art. 314 CrimPC, in the absence of a specific statutory exclusion (judgments 1B_656/2020 of 30 September 2021 consid. 2.1; 1B_669/2012 of 12 March 2013 consid. 2.3.2).

With regard to Art. 55a SCC, introduced in 2020 to strengthen the protection of victims of domestic violence, the Court held that a decision refusing suspension did not constitute an exception to the general rule of admissibility of appeals. The legislative revision did not alter this interpretation, and the majority of legal scholarship agrees that there is a right of appeal against such a refusal (see ANDRÉ VOGELSANG, Basler Kommentar, Strafprozessordnung, 3rd ed. 2023, no. 44a ad Art. 314 CrimPC; TRECHSEL/KELLER, Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch, Praxiskommentar, 4th ed. 2021, no. 8 ad Art. 55a SCC). The Court also emphasised that the increased discretion granted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office since 2020 does not deprive the parties of a right of appeal, in accordance with the statutory system.

However, the Court then examined the standing to appeal of the defendant against such a decision. Under Art. 382 para. 1 CrimPC, only a party with a legally protected interest in the annulment or modification of the decision may file an appeal. A legally protected interest requires a direct and immediate infringement of the appellant’s own rights, distinct…