European Court of Human Rights (EGMR) application and request under Rule 39
On 13.10.2025, a set of European Court of Human Rights (EGMR) application documents relating to case 1 was prepared or lodged, including the application form, supplementary sections E and F and a request under Rule 39.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This set of documents is no longer part of the original proceedings on the appeal on points of law, but completes the chronological chain of exhaustion of domestic remedies and further pursuit at international level.
European Court of Human Rights / Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Application form (GER-2022/2). Applicant: Dmitry Bagrash, born 09.05.1968 in Moscow, Russian nationality, Heidering Prison (JVA Heidering), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren. Email: bagrash.presse@gmail.com. Respondent: Germany.
Note on presentation: the official application form comprises 16 pages in the original, with sections A to I (personal details, facts, alleged Convention violations, admissibility, a list of annexes with over 90 individual entries). Because of its exceptional length, a faithful but substantially abridged summary of the central substantive sections E to G is reproduced below.
E. Statement of facts (key points)
The applicant introduces himself as a journalist and chair of the association UnKremlin e.V., whose activities, he states, were mentioned by name in official Russian OSCE (OSZE) statements. On 22.07.2024, the Berlin Regional Court (522 Ks 5/23) convicted him, among other offences, of attempted murder in connection with a USBV (improvised explosive and incendiary device) at Lepsiusstraße. He submits that the device had remained for at least 13 days in a shaft with little oxygen; that there were no traces of ignition or burning, the 9-volt battery was discharged, the circuit board’s function remained unexplained and unassigned DNA traces had been found on components. According to his account, these matters were not adequately investigated in the proceedings.
As the key domestic decisions, he identifies the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) orders of 07.05.2025 (Senate and presiding judge) and 19.06.2025, and the Federal Constitutional Court’s orders of 01.09.2025 declining to accept the complaints for decision (received 11.09.2025). He describes in detail: the absence of information on legal remedies when the judgment was pronounced; the subsequent “rectification” of the list of provisions only 373 days later (30.07.2025), which he considers inadmissible; the use of a statement of 07.01.2025 by his former court-appointed defence counsel which was never made accessible to him; the refusal of access to the case file for months; and numerous documented obstacles to access to the authorised registry official, to recording and forwarding submissions and to issuing acknowledgments of receipt under § 37 StPO — issues already documented extensively in this website’s case 2 chronology.
He additionally describes the political context of his association’s activities (Russian OSCE statements of 2021 and 2022 mentioning UnKremlin e.V. by name) and an incident he experienced in 2021 in which a banner was seized at a notified rally outside the Russian embassy.
F. Alleged Convention violations
The applicant alleges the following violations: Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (duty to give reasons; failure to address submissions material to the decision concerning USBV technology/DNA traces and the coronavirus emergency aid issue; assessment of evidence free from arbitrariness); Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. b EMRK (adequate time and facilities for defence, particularly access to the case file); Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. c EMRK (defence by a lawyer; breakdown of the lawyer-client relationship; counsel’s statement not made accessible); Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (access to court/reliability of communication, UKB — authorised registry official/record/post); Art. 13 EMRK (effective domestic complaint); and Protocol No. 7, Art. 2 EMRK (right to review by an appellate court in criminal matters, in relation to the absence of information on legal remedies and the subsequent supplement to the operative part).
G. Admissibility / exhaustion of domestic remedies
For each complaint, the applicant sets out the chain of domestic remedies used (appeal on points of law — Revision — to the BGH, complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard, constitutional complaints with three supplements, Federal Constitutional Court non-acceptance orders of 01.09.2025). He identifies 11.09.2025 (receipt of the Federal Constitutional Court decisions) as the start of the four-month time limit under Art. 35 Abs. 1 EMRK and thus 11.01.2026 as its end, and states that lodging the application on 13.10.2025 met that time limit.
I. List of annexes (overview)
The form lists over 90 annexes in chronological order — from the BGH and Federal Constitutional Court decisions and all supplements to the grounds of appeal (parts 1–8 together with the coronavirus supplement) to the individual documents in the case 2 and case 3 chronologies (including annexes 1_F2 to 77_F2, mostly already documented in full on this website), and the “Deception” documents 1–6.
Dmitry Bagrash, Heidering Prison, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To the Registrar, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 1 avenue de l’Europe, 67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France. Date: 13.10.2025. Request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights.
Note on presentation: this request comprises 57 pages in the original, with 16 thematic sections (7.1–7.16), each detailing facts, evidence and relevant European Court of Human Rights case law. Its content substantially overlaps with the earlier request concerning the same issues, already summarised in detail under F2-120 (Annex 78_F2); this earlier request was under Rule 39, so only a short overview of the supplemented or updated points follows.
Parties and subject
Applicant: Dmitry Bagrash. Respondent: Federal Republic of Germany. The request seeks interim measures to ensure unhindered access to the authorised registry official, post and fax; to ensure the practice of religion (Art. 9 EMRK); to safeguard effective defence and access to the case file; to provide necessary working materials in prison; and to preserve the status quo concerning the judgment of 22.07.2024 and the rectification order of 30.07.2025.
Thematic structure (16 sections)
Sections 7.1 to 7.16 address in detail: lack of access to justice; lack of access to the UKB and post; absence of substantive answers in BGH orders; absence of substantive answers concerning the constitutional complaints; missing acknowledgments of receipt under § 37 StPO; factual findings in the BGH orders concerning time limits and reinstatement challenged as incorrect; thwarted supplements to the grounds of appeal; the subsequent “rectification” of the judgment’s operative part of 30.07.2025; ignored submissions to the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (Berlin Senate Department for Justice); obstacles to access to the European Court of Human Rights itself; the practice of religion (case 3); the recurring pattern “Deception as Modus Operandi” (elements 1–6); transfers and the temporary removal of writing materials; health risks in connection with hunger strikes as a last resort; the unanswered immediate complaint against the supplement to the operative part; and, according to the applicant’s account, the blocked change of defence counsel and refusal of access to the case file. Each section refers to extensive European Court of Human Rights case law (including Golder/Vereinigtes Königreich, Airey/Irland, Kudła/Polen, Zubac/Kroatien, Akdivar u.a./Türkei, Mamatkulov und Askarov/Türkei, Campbell und Fell/Vereinigtes Königreich, Foucher/Frankreich, Salduz/Türkei).
Specific requests (point 8)
The applicant requests interim measures ordering the Federal Republic of Germany to: 1. ensure regular UKB access and proper registration, acknowledgment and forwarding of all letters addressed to courts/the European Court of Human Rights; 2. refrain from any seizure, delay or obstruction of correspondence with courts/the European Court of Human Rights; 3. make writing, copying and communication materials available and ensure medical safeguards during hunger strikes; 4. ensure the practice of religion in full; 5. refrain, until the decision on the merits, from any measure further worsening the legal position.
The list of annexes attached to the request (181 entries) includes, in addition to the case 2 and case 3 documents already mentioned, the Berlin Regional Court judgment, all BGH and Federal Constitutional Court decisions, and the complete versions of the two constitutional complaints of 16.06.2025 and their supplements.
Document source
European Court of Human Rights application form of 13.10.2025: Beschwerdeformular.pdf
Request under Rule 39 of 13.10.2025: Indiv. Beschwerde_Reg_39_EGMR.pdf
Note: Both documents are exceptionally long (16 and 57 pages respectively), so an abridged but faithful summary is reproduced above. The earlier, closely related request under Rule 39 of June 2025 is summarised in full under F2-120. Most of the case 2 documents referred to in the lists of annexes are already documented in full elsewhere on this website (case 2 chronology archive).