Refusal by the court registry officers at JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison) to accept a supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision)
On 14.03.2025 at 08:25 I appeared before the court registry officer at JVA Moabit to present a 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. The registry officers refused to accept it on the grounds that the deadline had expired. I pointed out that this was a supplement not subject to a time limit and admissible at any time. Nevertheless, my supplement was rejected and put aside. I then announced an application for an interim order. (Anlage 23_F2)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IMPORTANT: from that point on I sought to have the court registry records produced or made accessible, until inspection finally became possible on 05.05.2025.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dimitry Bagrash (register no. 2796/22/6), Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin. Declaration in lieu of oath.
On 14.03.2025 at 08:25 I was called to the Tiergarten registry officers’ service. Two registry officers were present. I presented my prepared text containing a supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law and asked for it to be accepted for recording by the court registry.
The registry officers merely glanced at the first page and told me that the deadline for submitting grounds for the appeal on points of law had already expired. I explained clearly that this was a supplement to those grounds, for which the law sets no time limit. Nevertheless, the registry officers would not hear me and repeatedly stated that all deadlines had expired.
I pointed out that this was a complaint of substantive legal error (Sachrüge). Nevertheless, the registry officers put my supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law aside. I merely announced an application for an interim order.
Note: The registry officers merely began reading the first page of my letter. However, that page contains only the introduction and an account of the legal position and case law. This gives reason to suspect that the registry officers had prepared a decision to refuse from the outset.
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, 14 March 2025.
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The reason given, that the deadline had expired, is an assessment of substance. In my view, the court rather than the registry is responsible for that examination. By refusing to record my submission on a substantive ground, a body not empowered to do so decided on its admissibility — and I had no formal legal remedy against that body’s conduct.
Source of the document
Anlage 23_F2 (declaration in lieu of oath of 14.03.2025): Anlage 23_F2.pdf
The application for an interim order made in response is documented under F2-036.