Refusal by the court registry officer to accept an immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde)

Dimitry Bagrash (register no. 2796/22/6), Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin. Declaration in lieu of oath.

1. On 18.03.2025 at 08:45 I was brought to the registry officers’ service at Amtsgericht Tiergarten.

2. The registry officer asked me what my request was. I explained that I had three current matters: to submit a supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law, to file a criminal complaint with the Bundesanwaltschaft (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office) against Groß, Presiding Judge at Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court), and to address a complaint of violation of the right to be heard to the Bundesgerichtshof.

3. The registry officer noted my applications and asked the member of JVA (prison) staff not to take me back to an empty single cell, as she wanted to make a telephone call about my requests.

4. Approximately 10 minutes later I was called again. The registry officer explained that she would not accept the supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law under any circumstances, because according to her it contained new arguments. However, she admitted that neither she nor another registry officer had read the content of my prepared supplement.

5. Concerning the criminal complaint against Mr Groß, she explained that I had to write and send it myself. I referred her to § 158 StPO, which requires registry officers to record oral criminal complaints. She read the section and confirmed that under the law she could accept the complaint but was not obliged to do so, and that in my case she would not accept it.

6. Regarding the complaint of violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrüge), she told me that she did not understand what an Anhörungsrüge was. Since I spoke German well, I should draft and send the letter myself. My point that an Anhörungsrüge had to be submitted to the court registry through the registry officers’ service was ignored.

Conclusion: I was thus unable to exercise my rights. In my view, the systematic suppression of my legal requests constitutes the criminal offence of perversion of justice (Rechtsbeugung). It is obvious that, after a telephone conversation, the registry officer acted on instructions and under the protection of her superiors.

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.