Refusal by the court registry officer to accept an immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde)
On 24.02.2025 at 8:45, the registry officer of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court) refused to accept my complaint for recording by the court registry on direct instructions from her superior (Anlage 26_F2).
Dimitry Bagrash (register no. 2796/22/6), Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin. Declaration in lieu of oath.
1. On 24.02.2025 at 06:20 I applied to the registry officers’ service at Amtsgericht Tiergarten Berlin for an urgent appointment in order to lodge an immediate complaint.
2. On the same day at 08:55 I was brought to the registry officers’ service. Two court registry officers and a member of JVA (prison) staff were present.
3. I presented the necessary documents and asked for my immediate complaint against a decision of Kammergericht Berlin (Berlin Higher Regional Court) to be recorded under § 311 StPO, pointing out that a deadline applied.
4. Both registry officers immediately refused to record the complaint after reading the content of my complaint about judicial inaction. Among other matters, it concerned suspected deception by the Presiding Judge at Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court), Mr Groß.
5. I was told that this decision had been made in consultation with a superior registry officer and that my complaint would not be accepted under any circumstances.
6. The member of JVA staff present also spoke and said, in substance, that there was no point in writing so much. She indicated that she already knew about all my previous letters. This raises the question of how a member of JVA staff can have access to my applications, although they are subject to the Data Protection Act and the official duty of confidentiality of the officers at Amtsgericht Tiergarten.
7. As a result, I was unable to exercise my right to an effective complaint.
Conclusion: I was unable to exercise my fundamental rights to a proper appeal on points of law (Revision). Through this decision, the Presiding Judge at the Regional Court, (VRiLG) Mr Groß, seriously violated Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG.
Warning: I have been informed that false statements in a declaration in lieu of oath may have criminal consequences (§ 156 StGB, § 163 StGB). Dmitry Bagrash. Place, date: Berlin, 18 March 2025.
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
A second refusal within six weeks, again referring to an instruction from superiors. This time a legal remedy subject to a deadline was affected. If the recording of a legal remedy subject to a deadline is refused, the remedy is not delayed but lost.
Source of the document
Anlage 26_F2 (declaration in lieu of oath): Anlage_26_F2.pdf