Refusal by the court registry officer to accept a supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law
On 15.01.2025 at 9:15, the court registry officer of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court), acting on direct instructions from Ms Lukas and Presiding Judge Groß of the Landgericht (Regional Court) (VRiLG)Presiding Judge at Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) in criminal case 522 Ks 5/23. Dmitry Bagrash publicly alleges that he altered the judgment after the fact; on 02.09.2026 he filed a criminal complaint on that basis. No decision has yet been made on the complaint; the presumption of innocence applies., refused to accept my supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision)The grounds for the appeal on points of law against the judgment of 22.07.2024, submitted by court-appointed defence counsel on 28.11.2024. for recording by the court registry (Anlage 9_F2).
Dimitry Bagrash (register no. 2796/22/6), Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin. Declaration in lieu of oath.
1. On 15 January 2025 at 6:20, I applied to the court registry officer at JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison) to submit my supplement to the appeal on points of law under § 345 StPO by having it recorded by the court registry.
2. On 15 January at 9:15, I went to the court registry officer of Amtsgericht Tiergarten, Ms Sauer, to submit my supplement to the appeal on points of law for recording by the court registry, with a law book containing the StPO in my possession. The original appeal on points of law had been filed within the deadline by my former lawyer, Mr Bernd Römer.
3. I asked Ms Sauer to accept the supplement.
4. Ms Sauer told me, however, that her superior, group head Ms Lukas, had instructed her not to accept my supplement. As the reason, she referred to a letter without a prescribed form from Judge Groß of 12 December 2024 in which he stated that the deadline for submitting grounds for the appeal on points of law had expired.
5. I then explained to Ms Sauer that, although the deadline for filing the appeal on points of law may have expired, under § 345 StPO the deadline for supplementing its grounds had not yet expired, since under § 344 Abs. 2 StPO the grounds for the appeal may be supplemented until preparation by the court hearing the appeal on points of law is complete.
6. Ms Sauer nevertheless told me that she had a direct instruction from Ms Lukas not to accept my supplement under any circumstances. She added that Ms Lukas was acting on a direct instruction from the Regional Court.
7. I suspect that “a direct instruction from the Regional Court” refers personally to VRiLG Groß.
8. Despite my references to the legal position, Ms Sauer refused to accept my supplement.
9. In my view, the refusal to accept it constitutes a violation of my constitutionally guaranteed right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, as well as a disregard of § 345 StPO.
Warning: I have been informed that false statements in a declaration in lieu of oath may have criminal consequences (§ 156 StGB, § 163 StGB).
Conclusion: I was unable to exercise my fundamental rights to a proper appeal on points of law. Through this decision, the Presiding Judge at the Regional Court, (VRiLG) Mr Groß, seriously violated Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG.
Dmitry Bagrash. Place, date: Berlin, 15 January 2025.
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The court registry officer told me that she was acting on instructions. My allegation is therefore directed not at her personally but at the authority from which the instruction came. In my view, recording a declaration under § 345 Abs. 2 StPO is a non-discretionary official duty: it is the form that is checked, not the content or the prospects of success. I cannot explain in legal terms an instruction by the presiding judge not to accept such a declaration.
Source of the document
Anlage 9_F2 (declaration in lieu of oath of 15.01.2025): Anlage 9_F2.pdf