Access to court 13.02.25

Submission to Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice; BGH)

I wrote for recording by the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof to request acknowledgement of receipt under § 37 StPO concerning my supplement of 20.01.25 to the submitted through the registry officer for recording by the court registry, as no acknowledgement of receipt has been issued to date. I also request notification of the case reference at the Bundesgerichtshof.

In my letter of 16.12.24 addressed to lawyer R., I revoked his power of attorney. On 17.12.24 I applied for lawyer R. to be discharged from his duties as defence counsel. To date I have received no decision from the LG (Regional Court) on this, despite the statement and complaint under § 198 GVG of 13.01.25 that I submitted.

I wish to inform the court that any possible letters from lawyer R. from 17.12.24 onwards have no validity, as he is acting without a power of attorney and his discharge as defence counsel has been requested since then. There has been no communication with lawyer R. since September 24, and I therefore do not wish under any circumstances to be represented by him from 17.12.24 onwards. I accordingly ask the court to conduct all communication directly with me and under no circumstances with lawyer R. If my supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law of 20.01.25 has not reached the BGH (Bundesgerichtshof), I request initiation of an investigation under § 308 StPO against . (Anlage 14_F2).

Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment

I received no acknowledgement of receipt under §37 StPO

First official response: on 21.05.2025 I received a response from a court for the first time — the BGH order dated 07.05.2025 (83 days later)

Source of the document

Anlage 14_F2 (application to the BGH for acknowledgement of receipt of 13.02.2025): Anlage 14_F2(1).pdf / Anlage 14_F2.pdf

Note: The scans stored in the Drive folder are handwritten record forms with severely limited OCR quality (the word order is partly jumbled). The continuous text above uses the complainant’s wording and corresponds in substance to the document; please consult the Drive link for the original.