Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference denotes registration in the proceedings register, nothing more) · second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 still without a case reference · criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026 undecided; the presumption of innocence applies · Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz declared in time for the record before the registry clerk on 09.09.2026 (the episode) · video-call ban of 22.07.2026 set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on the episode) · criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner with the Potsdam Public Prosecutor’s Office under 496 Js 34084/26 is being processed.
Criminal defence lawyer sought —
outside Berlin
Dmitry Bagrash, an anti-Putin activist and chair of Unkremlin e.V., seeks a committed criminal defence lawyer to reopen his case and prevent the threatened deportation to Russia — which would pose a direct threat to his life.
Constitutional complaint filed with the Federal Constitutional Court (10.07.2026)
On 10 July 2026, Dmitry Bagrash filed with the Federal Constitutional Court a constitutional complaintA legal remedy under § 90 BVerfGG against acts of public authority, alleging a violation of fundamental rights. As a rule, prior exhaustion of judicial remedies is required. concerning the systematic denial of access to the Urkundsbeamter (registry clerk authorised to record applications)Urkundsbeamter der Geschäftsstelle (UKB) — the registry officer before whom a prisoner without legal assistance can declare a legal remedy orally for the record. at JVA Heidering. The proceedings are pending before the court; a decision is still outstanding. This complaint does not alter the urgent need for an independent criminal defence lawyer outside Berlin — on the contrary, it underscores the importance of legal assistance for the planned reopening under § 359 StPO once the preliminary questions concerning judicial remedies have been resolved.
A lawyer from Berlin faces unacceptable pressure
The Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office and Berlin’s Senate administration for justice have played an active and documented role in these proceedings that goes far beyond normal criminal prosecution. Previous defence lawyers were systematically obstructed in accessing the files and subjected to institutional pressure. A lawyer outside Berlin — ideally from another federal state — offers the structural independence essential to an effective defence.
⚠ Warning: anticipated obstructions
The defence lawyer must expect that, in response to requests for access to the files, the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Senate administration for justice will initially not respond at all. On following up, the response will be that the files are “not currently to hand” — at some unspecified location in the universe. Once they return, they would of course be forwarded immediately. Someone who can deal with this Kafkaesque administrative reality and is prepared to persist in seeking judicial remedies is the right partner for this case.
What an application to reopen proceedings could rest on — three points verifiable in ten minutes
I know that an application to reopen proceedings needs a novum — a new fact or item of evidence — and cannot rely on publicity. So here are the specifics first, without a preamble:
- The judgment of 22.07.2024 entirely lacked the list of applied provisions required by § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO. The Federal Court of Justice ruled on that version on 07.05.2025. The list was inserted on 30.07.2025 — 373 days after pronouncement, after the judgment had become final — on the grounds that there had been an obvious clerical error. The judicial panel issuing the correction order differed from the panel that delivered the judgment. Annex 65_F2
- The expert report by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) on the device’s incapacity to achieve its intended result and the question of how, despite that report, the assumption of dangerousness continues to affect sentencing and prognosis. I expressly do not claim that this incapacity argues against a conviction — § 23 Abs. 3 StGB makes an impossible attempt punishable.
- Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder travelled from Bonn twice and was not questioned on any issue to be proved. Groß dossier, point 17
I cannot assess whether this could establish a ground for reopening — that is precisely the question for which I am seeking a defence lawyer. All three points can be checked against the linked original documents without believing a word I say.
📋 Reopening matrix — all avenues at a glance
So that a defence lawyer need not start from scratch, I have arranged the possible approaches under §§ 359 ff. StPO into four avenues — new evidence (Nr. 5), a possible criminal offence by a judge (Nr. 3, currently barred by § 364 StPO), judgment/document identity and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (Nr. 6) — with each candidate’s status, statutory basis and next step. What cannot be sustained is also openly identified.
📋 Read the matrix (HTML) ⇩ Download as PDFWhy I am also contacting university law teachers and retired colleagues
Practising defence lawyers have repeatedly told me that taking this case is not tenable for an ongoing career in Berlin. I take that seriously rather than disputing it. I therefore expressly address two groups to whom this consideration does not apply:
- University law teachers. Under § 138 Abs. 1 StPO, teachers of law at a German higher education institution within the meaning of the Hochschulrahmengesetz (Framework Act for Higher Education) may also be chosen as defence counsel. Emeritus professors of criminal law and criminal procedure are as welcome to me as defence counsel as law firms are.
- Retired colleagues and former judges and prosecutors who remain admitted to practise as lawyers.
And if you cannot take the case: whom would you recommend? Even a single name would help me. I am in custody; I cannot ask around. A reply with one name takes you two minutes and changes my situation.
As of 08.09.2026
- Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 — registered with the Federal Constitutional Court under 2 BvR 1314/26. A case reference denotes an entry in the proceedings register; it says nothing about service or examination of the merits.
- Second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 — transmitted on 02.09.2026, without a case reference.
- Criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026 against VRiLG Groß (presiding judge at the Regional Court) and OStA Wachs (senior public prosecutor) — undecided; the presumption of innocence applies.
- 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz — the time limit for the Rechtsbeschwerde expires on 11.09.2026; without a defence lawyer, I can declare it only for the record at the court registry. The episode
- 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz — the decision banning video calls was set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026. The episode
- An application to the ECtHR has been lodged. Deportation proceedings are ongoing.
Five core areas
The actual aim — in one sentence
This website is extensive. So that no one has to work through it to find out what this is about: I am seeking defence counsel to examine an application to reopen proceedings under §§ 359 ff. StPO and, if counsel considers it well-founded, file it.
The starting point is the fact that the list of applied provisions under § 260 Abs. 5 StPO was absent from the judgment and was inserted only 373 days later — after the decision on the Revision (appeal on points of law) and after the judgment had become final — as the “correction of a clerical error”. The Federal Court of Justice therefore ruled on a judgment that did not contain this list at that time.
I cannot assess whether this gives rise to a ground for reopening, or whether the route is through § 359 Nr. 5 StPO, a constitutional complaint or proceedings under § 458 StPO. That is the question for a lawyer, and it is the core of the brief. Everything else on this page is background.
📋 Reopening matrix: all avenues, status, next stepSubsequent amendment of the judgment — substantive infringement of its finality
The judgment of the Berlin Regional Court of 22.07.2024 was amended on 30.07.2025 — 373 days after pronouncement and 84 days after becoming formally final — by a so-called “correction order”: the complete chain of statutory provisions was inserted into the judgment for the first time, allegedly to correct an “obvious clerical error”.
In fact, this constitutes a substantive amendment of the operative part after the judgment became final — a unique occurrence in German law that forces the BGH to decide a Revision based on a judgment with a formal defect. Contrary to § 306 Abs. 2 StPO, the complaint of 26./27.08.2025 against the correction order was not referred to the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court), but forwarded internally to the Prosecutor General’s Office.
📄 Evidence against Wachs and Groß 📄 Deception as modus operandi 📝 Read the draft: application to reopen proceedingsConcealment of a Russian intelligence provocation — Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs (OStA)
Senior Public Prosecutor Klaus Michael Wachs closed the investigation into the arson attack on Bagrash’s vehicle and the surveillance of him on the grounds that involvement by Russian intelligence services was implausible: had they actually wanted to plant him as the perpetrator, they would have informed the German authorities anonymously. Moreover, according to both Wachs and Judge Groß, Bagrash’s political activity had been “entirely insignificant”.
On that basis, the OSCE report No. 519702 of 17.04.2022 was withheld from the court — a document that records Bagrash’s activities in detail and refutes the claim of “insignificance”. After the judgment, it emerged that OStA Wachs knew full well that Bagrash had been named as the perpetrator in Russian state media from the outset — the source was Sergej Feoktistov, a leading figure in Russian state media. Wachs thus demonstrably deceived the court.
📄 OSCE document No. 519702 📄 OSCE document No. 499582 📄 Feoktistov dossier 📝 Read the draft: reopening on the basis of new factsCriminal acts by Judge Groß — deception as a system
Presiding Regional Court Judge Groß (VRiLG) imposed a regime of complete isolation after pronouncement of the judgment: he barred communication with the Jewish community (116 days), did not forward supplements to the Revision to the court hearing the appeal, and even prohibited the registry clerk from accepting such submissions. Furthermore, he demonstrably gave Bagrash false information about the time limits and procedure for filing supplements to the Revision — a deception that structurally undermined the appeal.
All episodes are substantiated by declarations in lieu of oath. Criminal complaints alleging forgery of documents (a manipulated notice of remedies), obstruction of criminal prosecution in public office and coercion were filed — without any response from the competent supervisory authorities.
📄 Deception as modus operandi (complete) 📝 Read the draft: criminal complaint against Judge GroßAccess to files — early release as a means of pressure
The defence lawyer is to request full access to all prison records and challenge the documented situation in which early release and transfer to an open prison are in practice made conditional on one thing: Bagrash must abandon his public campaign for a review of the judgment and remain silent.
As an additional means of pressure, the prospect of deportation to Russia is raised — a country where Bagrash, as a prominent anti-Putin activist and chair of Unkremlin e.V., would face an immediate threat to his life. This constitutes a violation of Art. 3 EMRK and the absolute prohibition of refoulement.
Independent case review, press representation and international bodies
Bagrash seeks a defence lawyer who will request all procedural files and court records in full, provide an independent legal assessment of the proceedings as a whole and act as an official spokesperson to the press — nationally and internationally.
In addition, the defence lawyer is to coordinate the pending ECtHR application (313 pages, Rule 39) and contact the UN Special Rapporteurs on torture and political persecution. A connection with the Berlin House of Representatives’ Breitscheidplatz committee of inquiry — with which OStA Wachs is also associated — should also be examined.
📄 Evidence against Wachs and Groß (Google Drive)What the defence lawyer can expect
Anticipated institutional obstacles
In response to requests for access to the files, the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Senate administration for justice will initially not respond at all. On enquiry, it will be explained that the files are currently at some unspecified location — once they are found again, they would of course be sent immediately. This is not an isolated case but a documented pattern.
The defence lawyer must be prepared to persist in pursuing legal remedies: complaints about inaction, supervisory complaints and, if necessary, the administrative court. Someone with a thick skin and experience of resistant authorities is the right person here.
Bagrash is fully aware of this resistance and is expressly seeking a lawyer willing to take the case nonetheless.
I could be free tomorrow. I do not want freedom on those terms.
Before a lawyer decides whether to take this brief, they need to know what they are taking on. That is why I am saying this here as clearly as I can.
The way out is open to me. It has even been described to me in the prison records: I would have to admit the offence, “address” it and begin therapy. Then the way would be open to relaxations of the prison regime, early release would become attainable and, most probably, the threat of my deportation would also disappear. I would be deported to a country that has classified my association as “undesirable”.
I reject that freedom
I will not confess to something I did not do. Not for relaxations of the prison regime, not for early release, not under the threat of deportation.
The judgment was delivered in the name of the people. It declares me to be a person who knowingly accepted the possibility that a four-year-old child would die. Anyone who strikes a bargain with such a judgment confirms it. I do not confirm it.
And because it was delivered in the name of the people, it concerns more than just me. The citizens of this country have a right to learn what was decided in their name: on the basis of a judgment that lacked the list of applied provisions for 373 days; on the basis of prison records without a signature or an identified author; and accompanied by proceedings in which I could obtain access to the court registry only through a hunger strike.
I do not want freedom at any price. I want my name back: reopening of the proceedings, full rehabilitation and examination under criminal law of the conduct of those responsible. My lawful, duly notified political activity against the regime in Moscow was brought to an end by my imprisonment. That, too, is part of what must be restored.
My request to a future defence lawyer
Do not seek an agreement with the court. Do not discuss a confession in return for a reduced sentence, a Verständigung (negotiated agreement in criminal proceedings) under § 257c StPO, or an arrangement for a partial confession, whatever its purpose. That is ruled out, and I have expressly excluded it from the power of attorney.
Anyone taking this brief is not taking a brief to mitigate the sentence. They are taking a brief to review a judgment. If you consider that hopeless, tell me openly — that is an honest reason to decline. What I cannot work with is a defence lawyer who decides halfway through that a settlement would be more sensible.
In detail in my public statement of 27.07.2026: “I reject freedom in exchange for a confession” · all open statements
A proposal for verification: send your own lawyer
What this website says sounds improbable. I am aware of that. A prisoner claims that for months he was denied access to the court registry, that letters were opened and access to files refused — and produces documents that he selected himself. No journalist should accept that without checking it.
I therefore propose something to newsrooms that is not an investigation of my documents but a test against reality: Instruct a lawyer you trust. I will give that lawyer a power of attorney. They will request access to the files in my name — nothing more. They will document every step: when the request was made, when and whether a reply was received, what reasons were given, how often they had to follow up and what they encountered along the way.
The advantage of this approach is that you need not believe anything I say. You observe a process in which I am not involved. If it goes smoothly, you have evidence that my account is wrong — and you should write that. If it unfolds as I have experienced it for over two years, you will have documented it yourselves, first-hand and independently of me. Either is a result. Only one of them is comfortable.
What I contribute
A power of attorney limited to access to the files · access to all documents I possess · no influence on reporting · the newsroom’s right to publish the result even if it harms me.
Why the power of attorney is limited — and why that does not weaken the test
I do not give a general defence power of attorney to a person I do not know. The reason lies in my own experience: statements have been made in my name that I did not want and that harmed me. I will not repeat that mistake.
The power of attorney I give therefore covers only:
- requesting access to the files under § 147 StPO and inspecting them,
- receiving information and correspondence on that matter,
- representation in proceedings concerning access to the files itself, if access is refused.
Expressly not covered are:
- statements on the merits, in particular confessions, partial confessions or concessions of fact,
- agreements under § 257c StPO or discussions about them,
- withdrawal or restriction of legal remedies,
- any statement to a court, public prosecutor’s office or prison authority that goes beyond access to the files.
Any further action requires my prior written consent in the individual case. This limitation will be placed on the file so that it is apparent to the court and the public prosecutor’s office.
This changes nothing for a newsroom’s test. Only one thing is being tested in any event: whether a lawyer obtains access to the files in these proceedings, how long it takes and what they encounter. That is exactly what this power of attorney authorises — and nothing else.
Send enquiries with the subject “Akteneinsicht – Redaktionsanwalt” (“File access — newsroom lawyer”) to the address below.
Get in touch
If you are a criminal defence lawyer outside Berlin — or know one — and are prepared to take on this exceptional case, we urgently ask you to get in touch. All documents can be provided immediately after an initial conversation.
Press contact and enquiries
Dmitry Bagrash can be reached at the following address.
Please use the subject: “Verteidigung Bagrash” (“Bagrash defence”)
All enquiries will be treated confidentially.
Further documents: Complete document index · Deception as modus operandi · Access to justice denied