Refusal by the registry clerk to record my complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard
At 06:20, I applied to have three complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrügen) entered on the record at the registry of Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit), pointing out that a time limit applied (one week).
At 08:30, I was brought before the registry clerk (Urkundsbeamtin). She refused to record them (Annex 38_F2).
Dmitry Bagrash, register no. 2796/22/6, Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin. Berlin, 26.05.2025. Declaration in lieu of oath.
I, Dmitry Bagrash, hereby declare in lieu of oath under § 294 Abs. 1 ZPO and all other relevant statutory provisions as follows:
1. On 26.05.2025 at 06:20, I applied at the correctional facility to submit three complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard for entry on the record at the registry. I expressly pointed out that the matter was subject to a time limit.
2. At 08:30, I was brought before the clerk of the registry at JVA Moabit.
3. The registry clerk refused to enter the complaints on the record, on the grounds that a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard is admissible only if that right has been violated — which she denied in my case. She added that the registry had already accepted “too many little pieces of paper” from me and no longer wanted to accept any more.
4. I then explained the applicable legal position to her, in particular that only two permissible ways of filing were open to me: entry on the record at the registry, or through a lawyer. As I have no longer been granted access to my appointed defence counsel since September 2024, the registry was de facto the only route available to me.
5. Nevertheless, the registry clerk again stated that she refused to enter the complaints on the record and that I could “somehow submit it myself”.
Conclusion: Despite presenting myself at the registry within the time limit, I was unable to exercise my right to lodge a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard. I was unlawfully denied the statutory opportunity to make such a complaint for entry on the record.
I hereby affirm that the above statements are true. Caution: I have been informed that false statements in a declaration in lieu of oath may have consequences under criminal law (§ 156 StGB, § 163 StGB).
Dmitry Bagrash
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
A complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO is subject to a one-week time limit and was the last domestic remedy against the Federal Court of Justice order. Just over two hours elapsed between my application at 06:20 and the refusal at 08:30. I then had to submit the complaints in writing as a fallback — by post, whose reliability during that period was itself the subject of my complaints.
Document source
Annex 38_F2 (declaration in lieu of oath of 26.05.2025): Anlage_38_F2.pdf
The fallback written submission of the complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard following this refusal is documented under F2-073.