Facts

The appellant, [A.] , lodged an appeal in criminal matters against an order of the Valais Cantonal Court, Criminal Chamber, dated 30 December 2019 (P3 19 326). That order had dismissed, to the extent admissible, the appeal against an order of the Central Office of the Valais Public Prosecutor's Office dated 10 December 2019, which had refused to entertain criminal complaints filed on 28 October and 18 November 2019 against a judge and three prosecutors of Valais.

The complaints mainly targeted abuse of authority (art. 312 SCC). The appellant supplemented his appeal with several submissions and mailings, dated in particular 26 January, 10, 15, 24 and 29 February, 14 May and 20 May 2020, as well as with a separate appeal against a judgment of the Vaud Cantonal Court dated 25 February 2020 (case 5A_221/2020).

Advance on costs:

  • By order of 4 February 2020, the appellant was invited to pay an advance on costs of CHF 800 by 19 February 2020.
  • Due to non-payment, a further deadline expiring on 9 March 2020 was set, with a warning of the legal consequences (art. 62 para. 3 FSCA).
  • The appellant responded by letter of 17 March 2020, which contained no intelligible request for legal aid, but a 55-page brief devoted to numerological (gematrical) demonstrations unrelated to the proceedings.

On 14 May 2020, he contested the advance on costs in a mailing of approximately 82 pages, again with no real connection to the case.

Time limit for appeal: the contested order was notified on 3 January 2020. The last day of the 30-day time limit (art. 100 para. 1 FSCA) was Sunday 2 February 2020, extended to Monday 3 February 2020 (art. 45 para. 1 FSCA). Submissions filed after that date are late.

Main question: is the appeal admissible, in particular in view of the standing of the injured party to appeal (art. 81 para. 1 let. b no. 5 FSCA), the right to file a complaint (art. 81 para. 1 let. a and b no. 6 FSCA) and the payment of the advance on costs (art. 62 FSCA)?

Considerations

Under art. 62 para. 1 FSCA, the party bringing a matter before the Federal Supreme Court must advance the presumed costs of the proceedings. If it does not pay the advance within the further deadline set after an initial non-payment, the appeal is inadmissible (art. 62 para. 3 FSCA). In this case, the appellant did not pay the advance and made no intelligible request for legal aid; his submissions contain only numerological developments. The Federal Supreme Court therefore finds that the costs were not advanced and that the appeal is inadmissible on that ground.

In addition, the injured party may appeal only if the contested decision may affect the outcome of its civil claims (art. 81 para. 1 let. b no. 5 FSCA), which must be based on civil law, in particular claims for redress within the meaning of arts. 41 et seq. CO (ATF 141 IV 1 consid. 1.1). It is incumbent on the appellant to allege the facts establishing his standing to appeal (art. 42 para. 1 FSCA). However, the appellant asserts no claim against the judge and prosecutors concerned. Under art. 4 para. 1 of the Valais Act on the Liability of Public Entities and Their Agents (LResp/VS), the State and the municipalities are liable for damage unlawfully caused by their agents; this liability is primary and exclusive (art. 5 LResp/VS), so that the agents are not personally liable. The appellant therefore does not demonstrate his standing to appeal.

The appellant also invokes the Invocatio Dei in the preamble of the Federal Constitution and a moral and religious critique of the magistrates. That part of the preamble has no normative scope and does not establish any right enforceable by a court. These arguments relate at best to the merits of the alleged offences, in particular abuse of authority, and do not invoke any intelligible violation of the right to file a complaint…