Reply from the court
On 16.01.2025 I received a letter without a prescribed form from 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., in which he asserted that I had no right of access to the case file because I was still represented by my lawyer, although I had already requested in my application that my lawyer be discharged from his duties as defence counsel (Anlage 31_F3).
In a previous reply of 12.12.2024, he had refused access to the case file on technical grounds (Anlage 3_F2).
Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), Regional Court for Criminal Matters, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. Case reference: 522 Ks 5/23, 176 Js 4/22. To Mr Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison). Date: 16.01.2025.
Dear Mr Bagrash, I refer to your letter of 13 January 2025. The following should be stated in this regard: as regards your application to discharge your lawyer Römer from his duties as defence counsel, together with the request to obtain a finding of unlawfulness from the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office), in this court’s view there can be no question of inaction on your application. Immediately after receiving your application to discharge defence counsel, I asked lawyer Römer for a statement; his statement of 8 January 2025 has been received here; no decision has yet been made on this. I will forward your application to follow the case file so that the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) is informed without delay.
Regarding your application for access to the case file, I refer you to the legal position under which the right to inspect the case file (§ 147 Abs. 1 StPO) is exercised exclusively by defence counsel, and a right to receive copies from the case file exists only for an unrepresented defendant (§ 147 Abs. 4 Satz 2 StPO); accordingly, in this court’s view, based on § 147 StPO, you specifically have no right to inspect the case file.
Yours sincerely, Groß, Presiding Judge at the Regional Court. By order: Schlägel, JOSekr’in, court registry officer (Urkundsbeamtin der Geschäftsstelle).
Note: The underlying scan of this letter has severely limited OCR quality (the word order is partly jumbled); the text above was reconstructed from the discernible content.
Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), Regional Court for Criminal Matters, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. Case reference: 522 Ks 5/23, 176 Js 4/22. To Mr Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison). Date: 12.12.2024.
Dear Mr Bagrash, in the proceedings concerning you, I refer to your application of 10 December 2024, which was received here yesterday. In this regard I must inform you that the case file is no longer here, because after receipt of the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision) from your defence counsel, lawyer Römer, it was sent to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin for onward transmission to the Bundesgerichtshof. Thus, for this reason alone, I would in purely practical terms be unable to grant access to the case file. Furthermore, I would point out that the deadline for submitting grounds for the appeal on points of law has expired, and the law provides no possibility of extending it in this case. I will, however, send copies of your application and this letter to your defence counsel for his information, and will also forward your application immediately to follow the case file.
Yours sincerely, Groß, Presiding Judge at the Regional Court. Certified as a true copy: Berlin, 12.12.2024, Schlägel, JOSekr’in, court registry officer (Urkundsbeamtin der Geschäftsstelle).
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
Within one month, I received two mutually exclusive reasons for the same refusal: on 12.12.2024 the file was said to be technically unavailable; on 16.01.2025 I was said to have no entitlement to access because I was represented by counsel. The second reason relies on a defence relationship whose termination I had already requested by that point and which did not exist in practice. Without access to the case file, I could neither substantiate complaints of procedural error nor later meet the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s (Federal Constitutional Court’s) requirement to submit the Generalbundesanwalt’s (Federal Public Prosecutor General’s) application.
Source of the document
Anlage 31_F3 (letter of 16.01.2025): Anlage 31_F3.pdf / Anlage 31_F3.pdf (second version)
Anlage 3_F2 (letter of 12.12.2024) is already documented in full under F2-007: Anlage 3_F2(1).pdf / Anlage 3_F2(2).pdf / Anlage 3_F2.pdf