Reopening matrix — four tracks, status of each candidate, next step
This page systematically organises possible approaches to Wiederaufnahme (reopening of criminal proceedings) under §§ 359 ff. StPO in proceedings 522 Ks 5/23 (LG Berlin I, Landgericht Berlin I — Berlin Regional Court I) into four tracks, identifies the evidential status of each individual point, and indicates where the evidence ends. It is intended as a working tool for retained defence counsel — not as a completed application or a finding of fact.
A prioritisation matrix, not a narrative
The earlier account of this case was event-based: a chronological sequence of occurrences that could be read as a pattern. A pattern is insufficient for a reopening application — § 359 StPO requires an individual, statutorily defined ground for reopening, supported by sound evidence. This matrix therefore breaks the case into individual, verifiable modules and assigns each to one of the four statutory tracks.
The basic structure was developed externally and critically checked by me: individual cited BGH decisions were verified against publicly accessible legal databases. One point was corrected relative to the external version (B2, with reasons below), because it examined a weaker assertion than the one actually presented with evidence on this website. The original material also included documents on approaching lawyers and fee negotiations — these are explicitly not part of this public page and will not become part of it.
This page does not replace a lawyer’s review. It is intended to shorten the initial work for retained defence counsel — not replace the assessment of whether an application actually has prospects of success.
Status categories
Evidential status
All candidates at a glance
| ID | Track | Candidate | Anchor | Status | Main threshold condition | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | DNA / raw trace data | § 359 Nr. 5 | ACTIVELY DEVELOP | genuine novelty + suitability | secure raw data + expert report using a new methodology |
| A2 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | Electronics / USBV | § 359 Nr. 5 | ACTIVELY DEVELOP | new material / method | complete reconstruction from primary data |
| A3 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | Fire / explosion physics | § 359 Nr. 5 | ACTIVELY DEVELOP | not merely a second opinion | new underlying facts / superior method |
| A4 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | Digital forensics / device provenance | § 359 Nr. 5 | ACTIVELY DEVELOP | raw data available? | identify forensic images / logs |
| A5 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | OSCE documents on UnKremlin | § 359 Nr. 5 | EXAMINE | used by the trial court? + relevance to the outcome | compare judgment and case files |
| A6 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | Feoktistov / contradictory statements | § 359 Nr. 5 | EXAMINE | genuinely new? | compare original source and record |
| A7 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | Witness / audio equipment | § 359 Nr. 5 | EXAMINE | testimony already known? | reconstruct the witness evidence precisely |
| A8 | New facts / evidence (Nova) | Trace / physical-evidence chain | § 359 Nr. 5 | ACTIVELY DEVELOP | new facts | obtain physical-evidence / chain-of-custody records |
| B1 | Offence by a judge | 12.12.2024 — information on time limits | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | DEFER | no objective serious breach of the law | reopen only with new internal evidence |
| B2 | Offence by a judge / document | 08.01.2025 — information on avenues of appeal (Anlage 29_F3) | § 44 S. 2, § 339 StGB | ACTIVELY EXAMINE † | authenticity / composition of the sheet unresolved | apply for technical examination of the original |
| B3 | Offence by a judge | 15.01.2025 — refusal to record | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | SECURE EVIDENCE | instruction from Groß only presumed | instruction chain / witnesses / file notes |
| B4 | Offence by a judge | 16.01.2025 — case-file inspection / discharge of defence counsel | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | DEFER | significant counterarguments | investigate only the file’s passage / breach of trust further |
| B5 | Offence by a judge | 24.02.2025 — refusal to accept complaint | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | SECURE EVIDENCE | no link to a judge | court registry file notes |
| B6 | Offence by a judge | 14.03.2025 — refusal to accept appeal supplement | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | SECURE EVIDENCE | person responsible expressly unknown | witnesses / telephone notes / duty records |
| B7 | Offence by a judge | 18.03.2025 — refusal to accept / §158/§356a | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | SECURE EVIDENCE | court registry action; no link to a judge | communication chain |
| B8 | Offence by a judge | 30.07.2025 — correction of list of provisions | § 359 Nr. 3 / § 339 | DEFER | BGH allows correction even after finality | reopen only if more than the list was changed |
| B9 | Offence by a judge | Criminal complaint of 02.09.2026 / status | § 364 | BLOCKED | no prior final conviction known | obtain case reference + processing status |
| C1 | Document identity | missing §260(5) list of 22.07.2024 | Track C | PURSUE SEPARATELY | no independent reopening provision | secure document chain |
| C2 | Document identity | Correction of 30.07.2025 | Track C | PURSUE SEPARATELY | list may be amended after finality | compare original and pronouncement record |
| C3 | Document identity | other differences between versions | if applicable §359 Nr.1/5 | ACTIVELY EXAMINE | actual falsification / new fact? | compare hashes / versions of all originals |
| D1 | ECtHR (EGMR) | pending individual application | § 359 Nr. 6 | CONTINGENT | ECtHR finding missing | keep case files complete |
| D2 | ECtHR (EGMR) | subsequent finding of a violation | § 359 Nr. 6 | CONTINGENT | judgment “based on” the violation | prepare causation matrix |
| P1 | Preparation | Appointment of defence counsel | § 364b | ACTIVELY EXAMINE | specific inquiries + financial need | tailor application to specific investigation programmes |
† B2 differs in status and characterisation from the original external version — reasons in section 3.
§ 359 Nr. 5 StPO — new facts and evidence
A different expert is generally not yet new evidence in itself. Novelty may arise from a different field of expertise, superior experience, superior research tools or methods, previously unanalysed examination material, or new underlying facts — and the new fact must not already have been used in the earlier deliberation on the judgment. The reopening court assesses suitability evaluatively at the admissibility stage; a preponderant probability of a more favourable outcome is required.
Every A candidate must therefore pass two tests: a novelty test and a suitability test.
| ID | Candidate | What would genuinely be new | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | DNA / raw trace data | Unanalysed raw electropherograms, partial profiles, new probabilistic mixed-profile analysis, new comparison persons, contamination / chain-of-custody facts. | HIGHEST PRIORITY |
| A2 | Electronics / USBV | Forensic system reconstruction rather than a second opinion: circuit topology, actual ignition energy, battery parameters, trigger logic — distinguishing a dummy, a defective system and a functional system. | HIGHEST PRIORITY |
| A3 | Fire / explosion physics | New data or a new method concerning ignition, fire spread or oxygen supply — not merely a different interpretation of the same facts. | ACTIVE, with A2 |
| A4 | Digital forensics | Forensic images, file timestamps, cloud / sync metadata, EXIF, log files — provided they have not yet been analysed. | once images / logs are available |
| A5 | OSCE documents (PC.DEL/1483/21; PC.DEL/526/22) | Relevant only if the judgment’s account of the motive is incompatible with these objective external reactions and they were not already known to the trial court — otherwise merely cumulative. | EXAMINE, do not assert as established new facts / evidence |
| A6 | Feoktistov | Compare the original statement of 02.02.2023 and later testimony with the record / judgment — was the contradiction already known or used? | EXAMINE |
| A7 | Witness / audio equipment | Exact person, exact testimony, whether heard / used at the main trial. | EXAMINE |
| A8 | Physical-evidence / trace chain | Documents concerning interim storage, changes of packaging, contamination events, missing seals and gaps in time. | ACTIVE, if case-file / log facts are new |
§ 359 Nr. 3 StPO — offence by a judge — and the correction to B2
A strict rule applies to this track: No application under Nr. 3 can be based solely on a “pattern”, “systematic conduct” or the number of obstacles. Nr. 3 requires a specific offence by a judge or lay judge meeting the statutory conditions who participated in the judgment — and § 364 StPO generally requires a prior final conviction of that person. Until this exists, the entire B track is procedurally barred for an immediate reopening application — regardless of how strong the individual points are substantively.
| ID | Event | Judge meeting the statutory conditions directly involved? | Objective unlawfulness currently clear? | Evidence of intent under §339? | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 12.12.24 — information on time limits | Groß — yes | no | no | defer |
| B2 | 08.01.25 — information on avenues of appeal | Groß and others — yes | see correction below | no | pursue separately (document findings) |
| B3 | 15.01.25 — refusal to accept | not proven | open | no | secure evidence |
| B4 | 16.01.25 — case-file inspection | Groß — yes | not clear; strong counterargument | no | defer |
| B5 | 24.02.25 — refusal to accept | no | open | no | secure evidence |
| B6 | 14.03.25 — refusal to accept | no; person responsible unknown | open | no | secure evidence |
| B7 | 18.03.25 — refusal to accept | no | partly requires examination | no | separate track |
| B8 | 30.07.25 — list of provisions | Groß/Loewenthal — yes | generally permissible under BGH case law | no | Track C |
B2 — the information on avenues of appeal accompanying Anlage 29_F3 is not merely a time-limit issue
The original external version of this matrix deferred B2 on the grounds that it concerned an “ordinary complaint without a §311 time limit” — thus examining the (weak) proposition that the letter had merely failed to mention that a complaint under § 304 StPO is not subject to a one-week time limit. The external version correctly assesses that proposition as unsustainable.
However, it thereby fails to examine the assertion actually presented with evidence on this website. Following my own examination of the document, the information on avenues of appeal attached to the reply concerning Anlage 29_F3 consists of two unrelated blocks: the text correctly begins with information on a complaint under § 304 StPO, breaks off mid-sentence, and transitions into form text about an appeal on facts and law (Berufung), an appeal on points of law (Revision), participation as an accessory prosecutor (Nebenklage) and a declaration of such participation (Anschlusserklärung) — remedies unavailable against an order. No time limit is stated anywhere, neither a correct nor an incorrect one.
How this sheet came into existence cannot be proven; it is an assessment, not a finding. Only the findings on the sheet itself are substantiated — they can be verified independently of any time-limit question, because the assertion concerns not an omitted time limit, but the physical composition of the document.
Full-text references: VRiLG Groß dossier, chapter IV · Deception as modus operandi, deception 7 · Chronology F3-033 · Anlage 29_F3
Correction, identity of the judgment, finality — pursued separately from track B
This track remains important, but is deliberately separated from the Nr. 3 argument: under BGH 1 StR 106/24 and 3 StR 122/22, the list of provisions applied is neither the operative part nor the reasons for the judgment; it may generally be corrected even after finality. A ground for reopening does not follow automatically.
- C1 — established finding: The original judgment of 22.07.2024 did not contain the §-260-Abs.-5 list.
- C2 — established subsequent finding: On 30.07.2025, the list was inserted “after the operative part of the judgment”, justified as an obvious clerical error — with a different chamber composition than at judgment (Schlimm instead of Frank, see Groß dossier, point 16).
- C3 — open and to be actively examined: Whether anything other than the list was changed must be clarified by comparing hashes / versions of all originals.
- C4 — open document questions: pronounced original, hearing record, judicial original, official copies, metadata, occasion and time of creation of the correction order.
- C5 — only with new evidence: A switch to § 359 Nr. 1 or Nr. 5 can be considered only if genuine evidence of a falsified document or new document facts emerges.
ECtHR (§ 359 Nr. 6) and § 364b StPO
Track D requires the ECtHR to find a violation of the ECHR and the German criminal judgment to be based on that violation. No relevant final ECtHR judgment already fulfilling these requirements is known — this track is therefore contingent. It is already useful to maintain a causation matrix (ECHR ground of challenge · domestic occurrence · connection with judgment · conceivable “basis” · primary evidence). BVerfG 2 BvR 1699/22 shows that the requirement of the judgment being based on the violation must not be overstretched in certain Art. 6 situations.
§ 364b StPO is tailored to preparing a possible reopening and is therefore the practical first step: obtaining the raw DNA data and examining them with a superior method, obtaining the full USBV physical-evidence / measurement data for independent reconstruction, examining previously unanalysed digital forensic images / logs, obtaining court registry file notes on the occurrences in track B, comparing the original, record and official copy of the judgment together with its correction. Such an application establishes a concrete connection with § 364b Abs. 1 Nr. 1 StPO — unlike a general application for “a lawyer for reopening”.
What should no longer appear as established in a serious application
The external preliminary review identified several formulations that overstate the evidence. They are deliberately disclosed here, because a matrix that shows only its own strength is worthless for defence counsel:
Provisions and key decisions
BGH, 09.06.2026 – StB 35/26 · BGH, 09.06.2026 – StB 20/26 · BGH, 18.04.2024 – 1 StR 106/24 · BGH, 31.05.2022 – 3 StR 122/22 · BGH, 20.09.2000 – 2 StR 276/00 · BGH, 14.09.2017 – 4 StR 274/16 · BGH, 07.07.1976 – StB 11/74 · BGH, 03.12.1992 – StB 6/92 · BVerfG, 04.12.2023 – 2 BvR 1699/22
The case references above were verified against publicly accessible legal databases insofar as published; comparison with Beck-Online/juris is nevertheless recommended for the final review.
Where the priority lies
Track A (§ 359 Nr. 5) has the highest practical priority and is not barred by § 364. Track B (§ 359 Nr. 3) is procedurally blocked until a final conviction of the judge concerned exists — with B2’s special position as an independent, separately usable document finding. Track C is documented separately and is not equated with a ground for reopening. Track D should be prepared, but depends on an ECtHR finding. § 364b StPO is the concrete instrument through which retained defence counsel can translate this prioritisation into access to files and expert commissions.
Download this matrix
⇩ Download as PDFSame content, formatted for printing and sharing. As of 25.09.2026.