Further supplement to the constitutional complaint

Dmitry Bagrash, Heidering Prison (JVA Heidering), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To the Federal Constitutional Court, Schlossbezirk 3, 76131 Karlsruhe. Date: 25.07.2025. Az.: 2 BvR 964/25 and 2 BvR 1069/25, against the Federal Court of Justice’s order of 19.06.2025 (Az. 5 StR 72/25).

Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby supplement my constitutional complaints already pending with the following statement concerning the Federal Court of Justice’s order of 19.06.2025, which was served on me on 17.07.2025.

I. Facts

By the challenged order of 19.06.2025 the BGH dismissed all complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard and the application to defer enforcement in a blanket manner, without substantively addressing the supplements to the grounds of appeal (parts 1 to 8) and the separate submission on the “coronavirus emergency aid” issue.

II. Violation of the right to be heard (Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG)

The complaint argues that, under Federal Constitutional Court case law (see BVerfGE 86, 133), the blanket formula that all submissions were available and considered is insufficient if no substantive engagement with submissions material to the decision can be traced.

III. Violation of the right to effective judicial protection (Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG)

According to the complaint, the BGH completely disregarded, in particular, the application for a judicial finding of inactivity under § 198 GVG and the application for an interim order to ensure proper recording and forwarding.

IV. Violation of Art. 6 EMRK

According to the complaint, the complainant was effectively left without a defence because court-appointed defence counsel was unreachable for months, his discharge was repeatedly refused and access to the case file was blocked.

V. Breach of the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG)

The complaint states that the unreachable court-appointed defence counsel’s statement was treated as binding while the declarations in lieu of oath and submissions describing the refusal of communication were disregarded — characterised as a one-sided, arbitrary approach.

VI. Absence of a decision on the merits of the coronavirus emergency aid issue

According to the complaint, the allegations concerning coronavirus emergency aid, set out in detail, were addressed neither by the trial court in its judgment nor by the BGH in its decision on the appeal on points of law — characterised as a gross failure to recognise this ground of appeal and, at the same time, a violation of the right to be heard.

VII. Requests

1. A finding that the order of 19.06.2025 violates Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG, Art. 6 EMRK and Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG. 2. Setting aside the order and remitting the case to the BGH with directions to examine substantively all supplements to the grounds of appeal and the coronavirus emergency aid issue. 3. Maintaining or additionally issuing an interim order to ensure the immediate processing of submissions and defence rights.

Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash. Annexes: copy of the order of 19.06.2025.