- The litigation’s procedures and stages and the issuance of judgments are among the foundations of judicial system. They shall be observed and adhered to due to their connection with the public order. The Supreme Court may raise it sua sponte.

- Appeal in cassation. Permissible against final judgments issued by the courts of appeal. Reason therefor. Existence of a normal method of appeal. Result thereof. It shall be exhausted before resorting to cassation. Reason therefor. To remedy the final judgments’ violation of the law or error in its application or interpretation. The basis therefor? Article 244/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

- A judgment issued in absentia challengeable by way of opposition. Result thereof. The accused may not file an appeal in cassation against it before the expiry of the time limit prescribed for the opposition or exercise of his right. Effect thereof. Inadmissible cassation.

- A person accused of a felony or misdemeanour punishable by a penalty other than a fine. Shall appear before the court in person. The basis therefor? Article 160/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Violation thereof. Effect thereof. The judgment shall be deemed in absentia and challengeable by way of opposition.

- The Judgment. Shall be deemed in presence or in absentia based on the facts of the case. Result thereof. Inadmissibility of appeal in cassation before the expiry of the time limit prescribed for the opposition or use of the right. The documents do not include any indication as to the notification of the accused thereof. Effect thereof. Inadmissible.

Whereas it is prescribed - as per the ruling of this court - that the litigation’s procedures and stages, and the issuance of judgments are among the foundations of the judicial system and required by law to be observed and adhered to due to their connection with the public order, and that the Supreme Court may raise it sua sponte. Whereas it is prescribed - as per the ruling of this court - and pursuant to the text of Article 244/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law that only final judgments rendered by the court of appeal in a felony or a misdemeanour, may be challenged by way of cassation, which means that as long as there is a normal method to file an appeal against the judgment, and under which the said judgment may be cancelled or modified, this method shall be used before resorting to cassation, which is an unusual way to challenge judgments and is not authorised by the legislator except under specific conditions so as to remedy the final judgments’ violation of the law or an error in its application or interpretation, and then if the judgment is issued in absentia and is challengeable by way of opposition, which is a normal way to contest judgments, the accused may not file an appeal in cassation against it before the expiry of the time limit prescribed for the opposition or the exercise of said right. Accordingly, if he files a cassation, such cassation shall not be admissible, and the court shall rule its inadmissibility sua sponte. Article 160/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that “The accused of a felony or a misdemeanour, punished by a penalty other than a fine, shall appear before the court in person”, which indicates that the legislator has stipulated that for a judgment to be considered issued in presence with respect to the crimes mentioned in this text, the accused shall attend the trial session in which the pleading was heard, in person and not by a representative on his behalf, whether the judgment was issued therein or in another session, otherwise the judgment shall be considered issued in absentia and challengeable by way of opposition.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested ruling and all other documents - the Public Prosecution has accused the appellant and others of having on 22/02/2019 and on a prior date, in the Ajman Department:

1- Abused psychotropic substances (amphetamine - methamphetamine - pregabalin) in cases other than those authorised by law, as indicated in the investigations.

2- Possessed narcotics (hashish) with the intention of abuse, as indicated in the investigations.

and requested his punishment in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 6/1, 7, 34, 39, 40/1, 56, 65 of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995 on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances and its amendments, and Tables I, VI and VIII attached to the aforementioned Law.

In the session dated 5/9/2019, the Court of First Instance ruled in presence to imprison the appellant for a period of two years for the two charges against for being connected.

The convicted person filed an appeal against this ruling under No. 1097/2019.

In the session dated 27/10/2019, the Ajman Federal Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to confirm the appealed ruling as regards the appellant.

This judgment was not accepted by the appellant, therefore he filed against it the present appeal in cassation.

The Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of its opinion whereby it requested the dismissal of the cassation.

Whereas it is prescribed - as per the ruling of this court - and pursuant to the text of Article 244/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law that only final judgments rendered by the court of appeal in a felony or a misdemeanour, may be challenged by way of cassation, which means that as long as there is a normal method to file an appeal against the judgment, and under which the said judgment may be cancelled or modified, this method shall be used before resorting to cassation, which is an unusual way to challenge judgments and is not authorised by the legislator except under specific conditions so as to remedy the final judgments’ violation of the law or an error in its application or interpretation, and then if the judgment is issued in absentia and is challengeable by way of opposition, which is a normal way to contest judgments, the accused may not file an appeal in cassation against it before the expiry of the time limit prescribed for the opposition or the exercise of said right. Accordingly, if he files a cassation, such cassation shall not be admissible, and the court shall rule its inadmissibility sua sponte. Article 160/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that “The accused of a felony or a misdemeanour, punished by a penalty other than a fine, shall appear before the court in person”, which indicates that the legislator has stipulated that for a judgment to be considered issued in presence with respect to the crimes mentioned in this text, the accused shall attend the trial session in which the pleading was heard, in person and not by a representative on his behalf, whether the judgment was issued therein or in another session, otherwise the judgment shall be considered issued in absentia and challengeable by way of opposition.

Whereas it is established, pursuant to the perusal of the documents, that the two crimes imputed to the accused are punishable by a penalty other than a fine, which requires, in accordance with the provisions of Article 160/1 above, that in order to consider the judgment issued in presence, the appellant shall attend in person the sessions set for hearing the cassation filed by him against the appealed judgment and the appearance of his lawyer, being a representation of an absent, shall not be regarded.