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. Berlin, 19.08.2025. Az.: 2 BvR 964/25 – supplement to the constitutional complaint of 18.06.2025.

I. Subject of the complaint

This extension of the complaint challenges fundamental-rights violations in connection with the judgment of the Berlin Regional Court of 22.07.2024, the Berlin Regional Court’s rectification order of 30.07.2025 and the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the BGH of 07.05.2025.

II.1. Failure to include the criminal provisions applied (§ 267 Abs. 6 StPO) and subsequent “supplement”

The judgment of 22.07.2024 contained no list of the provisions applied, which under § 267 Abs. 6 StPO is a mandatory part of every judgment’s operative part. The complaint argues that inserting the provisions only more than a year later, after the judgment had become final, is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. References are made to BVerfG NJW 2008, 2173; BVerfGE 64, 135 and BGHSt 27, 92: “Rectifications must be confined to clearly identifiable clerical errors; substantive changes to the operative part of a judgment after it has become final are inadmissible.”

II.2. Absence of information on legal remedies (§ 35a StPO)

According to the complaint, proper information on legal remedies was never provided concerning the judgment, the rectification order or the decisions on the appeal on points of law. The complaint states that the Federal Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasised that the absence of information on legal remedies generally violates Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG and Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (BVerfGE 64, 135; 122, 190); the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR) also requires effective defence to presuppose knowledge of the available legal remedies (EGMR, Pavlenko/Russland, 13.10.2009).

II.3. Appeal on points of law concerning a “non-existent” judgment

The complaint argues that a judgment which does not identify the provisions applied is formally incomplete (BGH NStZ 2012, 166); that this defect cannot subsequently be disregarded (BVerfG, order of 28.03.2010 – 2 BvR 871/04); and that the European Court of Human Rights requires all relevant bases for the decision to be available in full (EGMR, Döry/Schweden, 08.02.1996).

II.4. Summary

Violations of Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG, Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG and Art. 6 Abs. 1, Abs. 3 EMRK are alleged.

III. Requests

1. Extending the pending constitutional complaint to include the violations specified. 2. A finding that the judgment and rectification order contravene the rule of law and violate fundamental rights. 3. Raising the complete absence of information on legal remedies as an independent fundamental-rights violation. 4. Setting aside the challenged decisions and remitting the case to the Berlin Regional Court or the BGH.

Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash. Annexes: Berlin Regional Court rectification order of 30.07.2025.