Complaint under substantive administrative supervision (Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde) to the President of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) concerning systematic violations of law by the registry of Tiergarten Local Court
On 17.04.2025 I formally lodged a complaint under substantive administrative supervision (Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde) with the President of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht). The complaint concerned the conduct of the registry of Tiergarten Local Court in Berlin — in particular its court registry officers — over the continuing, systematic and legally unjustifiable refusal to accept written submissions in the ongoing proceedings on an appeal on points of law. (Annex 33_F2)
Dmitry Bagrash, Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin — To the President of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht), Elßholzstraße 30–33, 10781 Berlin. Berlin, 17.04.2025.
Subject: Complaint under substantive administrative supervision concerning Tiergarten Local Court — systematic violations of law by the registry.
Dear Madam President, dear Sir or Madam, I hereby formally lodge a complaint under substantive administrative supervision (Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde) concerning the registry of Tiergarten Local Court in Berlin, particularly the court registry officers working there, over the continuing systematic refusal to accept written submissions in ongoing proceedings on an appeal on points of law. On 24.03.2025 I had already lodged a complaint under administrative supervision (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) with Tiergarten Local Court concerning this (Annex 27_F2); there has been no response to date.
I. Facts
Between 15 January 2025 and 18 March 2025, I was repeatedly denied the legally guaranteed possibility of making written submissions to preserve time limits, particularly supplements to the statement of grounds for the appeal on points of law under § 345 Abs. 2 StPO, for entry on the record at the registry. In at least four documented cases, entry on the record was refused on untenable grounds (“time limit expired”, “acceptance is refused as a matter of principle”).
II. Legal assessment
§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO permits supplementation of the statement of grounds for the appeal on points of law until the court hearing the appeal decides; § 158 Abs. 1 StPO obliges the registry to enter submissions on the record; § 37 StPO requires written acknowledgement of receipt. There is also a violation of Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK and Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
III. Purpose of this complaint under substantive administrative supervision
1. Substantive examination of the facts. 2. Issuing instructions to Tiergarten Local Court under substantive administrative supervision. 3. Clarification of whether internal instructions led to this practice and, if appropriate, their withdrawal. 4. Arranging for a written statement by the responsible office. 5. Securing my access to an effective legal remedy.
Yours sincerely, Dmitry Bagrash
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The complaint under substantive administrative supervision was sent to the President of the Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht), because the registry of Tiergarten Local Court is subject to her supervision. The question of whether entry of submissions on the record may be refused was therefore on file at the highest level of the Berlin court administration by April 2025 at the latest. I have received no substantive answer to the core question.
Source of the document
Annex 33_F2 (complaint under substantive administrative supervision of 17.04.2025): Anlage_33_F2.pdf