Order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice
On 07.05.2025, the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice issued an order in case 5 StR 72/25. According to the constitutional complaint, the appeal on points of law (Revision) was dismissed without substantive consideration of my own grounds of challenge.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This order is the principal subject of one of the two constitutional complaints. In particular, the failure to consider my own supplements to the grounds of appeal and the documented obstructions is challenged.
Official copy (Ausfertigung). Federal Court of Justice, order of 7 May 2025, case reference 5 StR 72/25. In the criminal case against Dmitry Bagrash of Berlin, born on 9 May 1968 in Moscow (Russian Federation), for attempted murder and other offences.
On 7 May 2025, the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice ordered under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO:
1. The defendant’s appeal on points of law against the Berlin Regional Court I judgment of 22 July 2024 is dismissed.
2. The appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal.
3. All further applications by the defendant in this matter are rejected.
Reasons:
1. The defendant’s request to extend the deadline for stating the grounds of appeal cannot succeed because the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for no such extension. An application for restoration to the position before expiry of the deadline for stating the grounds of appeal (Wiedereinsetzung), if potentially applicable at all, would already be inadmissible because defence counsel stated the grounds of appeal in the required form and within the deadline; this is not an exceptional case in which restoration of the expired deadline for stating the grounds of appeal can be granted despite the appeal having been properly substantiated (see BGH, order of 14 November 2019 – 5 StR 505/19 Rn. 1).
2. The defendant’s appeal on points of law is unfounded within the meaning of § 349 Abs. 2 StPO. Review of the judgment on the basis of the stated grounds of appeal revealed no error of law to the defendant’s disadvantage (see the Federal Prosecutor General’s submission). The defendant’s letters (“supplements to the grounds of appeal”) were before the Senate and were the subject of its deliberations.
3. The defendant’s numerous further submissions in this matter are either not permissible in the applicable procedure or are inadmissible on other grounds.
Cirener · Gericke · Mosbacher · Resch · von Häfen. Lower court: Berlin Regional Court I, 22.07.2024 – (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23). Issued: senior judicial secretary acting as clerk of the court registry (Urkundsbeamtin der Geschäftsstelle).
Assessment — three sentences that matter
First. The Senate itself records: “The defendant’s letters (‘supplements to the grounds of appeal’) were before the Senate and were the subject of its deliberations.” The later order of 19.06.2025 specifies this as “up to and including part 7” (Chronology No. 46). This therefore officially establishes that the Senate knew the content of these submissions: the 13 days without traces of ignition, the contradictions in the assessment of evidence, the interruptions of my final statement — and the denial of access to the registry official (Urkundsbeamter) recorded in part 1. The order addresses none of these points.
Second. Point 3 reads: “The defendant’s numerous further submissions in this matter are either not permissible in the applicable procedure or are inadmissible on other grounds.” Not a single document is named, nor a date or case reference, and no distinction is made as to which submission fails for which reason. As the person concerned, I therefore cannot see what this decision relates to — and accordingly cannot challenge it either. The list of what I demonstrably submitted appears below.
Third. The Senate decided the appeal on points of law against a judgment that, at that time, did not contain the list of provisions applied under § 260 Abs. 5 StPO. It was added only on 30.07.2025 — 373 days after the judgment and 84 days after this decision (Chronology No. 49).
What demonstrably reached the Senate before 07.05.2025
This list serves for comparison with points 2 and 3 of the order. All submissions are recorded with the date on which they were entered on the record or dispatched.
Supplements to the grounds of appeal entered on the record of the registry: Part 1 – 20.01.2025 (failure to consider the final statement, § 258 Abs. 2 StPO, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG) · Part 2 – 28.02.2025 (interruptions of the final statement) · Part 3 – 05.05.2025 (assessment of evidence concerning the device, § 261 StPO) · Part 4 – 07.05.2025 (coronavirus emergency aid). The original versions of parts 3 to 7 had already reached the Federal Court of Justice on 18.03.2025 by post.
Applications and legal remedies: 03.02.2025 interim order and a finding at the Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) · 13.02.2025 letter to the Federal Court of Justice · 17.02.2025 application to the Federal Court of Justice · 15.03.2025 application on account of systematic refusals · 26.03.2025 complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrüge) through inactivity · 07.04.2025 application for provisional acceptance of parts 5 to 7.
Documented refusals to take submissions on the record before this decision: 15.01.2025 · 24.02.2025 · 14.03.2025 · 18.03.2025. These four dates are the reason why some of the supplements were entered on the record only late or not at all.
The individual grounds of challenge in these submissions are broken down in the list of grounds of challenge concerning the 5th Criminal Senate — 28 points stating the provision, the date of entry on the record, and whether they appear in the order.
I received no acknowledgement of receipt for any of these documents. The evidence rests on registry records and tracking numbers.
Document source
Order of the 5th Criminal Senate of 07.05.2025 (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO), official copy: Google Drive. Service on 21.05.2025 (Chronology No. 38).
Note on the source material (as of 11.08.2026): When accessed, the file stored in the main folder as “Beschluss 5_Senat_07.05.2025.pdf” contains the same text as “Beschluss_Vorsitzende_07.05.2025.pdf” — namely the refusal to release appointed defence counsel from duties and to grant access to the case file (F1-035). This is a duplicate naming in the archive. The correct official copy was found in another folder on 11.08.2026 and is reproduced in full above; the earlier note that the text was unavailable is therefore no longer relevant.
Constitutional complaint against this order: Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen Beschluss 5. Strafsenats BGH.pdf (in full under F1-044).