Fallback written submission of three complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard to the BGH
I then submitted three written complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrügen) to the Federal Court of Justice as a fallback under § 356a StPO in conjunction with § 44 StPO, simultaneously complaining of the registry clerk’s (Urkundsbeamtin) inactivity. Postal service on the BGH took place on 27.05.2025. Receipt was signed by Judge Mario von Haefen. (Annex 39_F2).
Complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice of 07.05.2025 (Annex 49_F2).
Complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO on account of failure to decide my immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) lodged on 21.02.2025 (Annex 50_F2).
Complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a against the order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice of 07.05.2025 (Annex 51_F2).
Declaration in lieu of oath of 26.05.2025 (Annex 38_F2)
Postal service (RR 90 614035 4DE) (Anlage_39_F2_Zustellung)
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
Here too, I received no acknowledgement of receipt under § 37 StPO.
Dmitry Bagrash, Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin — To the Federal Court of Justice, Karl-Heine-Straße 12, 04229 Leipzig. Berlin, 26.05.25. Copy to: Federal Constitutional Court (case reference AR 1067/25); Berlin Senate Department for Justice; German Bundestag Petitions Committee (case reference Pet 4-21-07-99999-001649); European Court of Human Rights (EGMR).
Subject: Fallback written submission of three complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO in conjunction with § 44 StPO on account of arbitrary refusal to take them on the record at Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit) (case reference 5 StR 72/25).
Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby submit in writing, as a fallback, three complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the Federal Court of Justice decision of 07.05.2025 (case reference 5 StR 72/25). A registry clerk arbitrarily refused my original submission for entry on the record at the JVA Moabit registry on 26.05.2025 at around 08:30, although I had applied early that morning to have it recorded and expressly pointed out the one-week time limit.
I. Fallback submission of the complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard
Despite my timely attendance at the registry of JVA Moabit on 26.05.2025, together with a written application for an appointment dated 24.05.2025, entry of my complaints on the record was refused without any legal basis. The registry clerk stated that she considered my complaints “no longer recordable” and refused to accept any more, because “enough little pieces of paper” had already arrived. This constitutes a gross violation of § 299 Abs. 2 StPO, § 23 EGGVG and Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG.
I therefore submit the following documents in writing as a fallback: 1. The complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard dated 22.05.2025 against the order of 07.05.2025 on account of systematic disregard of my supplements to the grounds of appeal. 2. The complaint dated 26.05.2025 on account of complete inactivity over 141 days concerning my applications for release of appointed defence counsel from duties and access to the case file. 3. The complaint dated 26.05.2025 (complaint concerning failure to decide) on account of failure to decide my immediate complaint of 21.02.2025.
II. Application for restoration to the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) under § 44 StPO
In the event that, despite my timely and repeated efforts to have the submissions entered on the record, the court finds that a deadline was missed, I hereby apply in the alternative for restoration to the previous procedural position. I refer in this regard to § 299 Abs. 2 StPO, § 23 Abs. 1 EGGVG, BVerfGE 107, 395 [401], Art. 6 EMRK, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
III. Offer of evidence: Declaration in lieu of oath of 26.05.2025 (Annex 38_F2), which proves that I appeared in good time (attendance at 06:20), requested entry on the record while pointing out the time limit, and was refused such entry for reasons unrelated to the merits.
This submission serves not only to comply with § 356a StPO but is also a prerequisite for my intended constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court and an individual application to the European Court of Human Rights under Art. 34 EMRK.
Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash
Dmitry Bagrash, Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin — To the Federal Court of Justice, Karl-Heine-Straße 12, 04229 Leipzig. Berlin, 22.05.2025. Complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice of 07.05.2025.
Note on presentation: this submission (approximately 12 pages in the original) is largely identical in content to the version entered on the record and reproduced in full under F2-077 (Annex 40_F2) — see there for the full text.
Core points: complaint concerning the unconsidered supplements to the grounds of appeal (parts 1 to 8 and coronavirus emergency aid); complaint concerning failure to consider appointed defence counsel’s appeal submission; complaint concerning the ignored applications for an interim order (13./15.03.2025) and for a finding of inactivity (07.04.2025); complaint concerning systematic sabotage of entry on the record by registry officials between 15.01. and 05.05.2025; complaint concerning mere “putting aside” (instead of deciding) of the applications for lawyer Römer’s release from his appointment and access to the case file — supported by extensive Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) and EGMR case law (including BVerfGE 47, 182; 93, 1; 101, 106; 117, 244; EGMR Foucher/Frankreich, Imbrioscia/Schweiz, Brandstetter/Österreich).
Dmitry Bagrash, Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin — To the Federal Court of Justice, Karl-Heine-Straße 12, 04229 Leipzig. Berlin, 26.05.2025. Complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO on account of failure to decide my immediate complaint lodged on 21.02.2025.
Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby lodge a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the order of 07.05.2025, which tersely states, without any hearing: “All further applications by the defendant in this matter are rejected.”
1. Background
On 03.02.2025, I applied to the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) for an interim order, including a demand to initiate a criminal investigation for perversion of justice (Rechtsbeugung) and obstruction of prosecution in public office (Strafvereitelung im Amt) against Groß, presiding judge at the Regional Court (VRiLG) (§§ 339, 258a StGB). This application was rejected on 17.02.2025 with the blanket reason of lack of jurisdiction, without the required transfer under § 17a Abs. 2 GVG. I therefore lodged on 21.02.2025 an immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against that act.
2. Forwarding to the BGH — but no decision
On 13.03.2025, I received a letter without a prescribed form from the Higher Regional Court: “Your immediate complaint of 21 February 2025 has been submitted to the Federal Court of Justice for decision.” Despite this confirmation, there was no response from the BGH.
3. Decision of 07.05.2025: blanket rejection without examination
On 07.05.2025, without any prior summons or hearing, I received an order which merely states: “All further applications by the defendant in this matter are rejected.” This blanket and empty rejection constitutes a flagrant violation of Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG and of the requirement of effective legal protection under Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
Applications
1. A finding that the Federal Court of Justice violated my right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG in a manner relevant to the decision. 2. Setting aside of the blanket rejection of 07.05.2025. 3. Restoration of the matter to its procedural position before the order was issued and renewed examination of my immediate complaint.
Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash
Dmitry Bagrash, Alt-Moabit 12a, 10559 Berlin — To the Federal Court of Justice, Karl-Heine-Straße 12, 04229 Leipzig. Berlin, 26.05.2025. Complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a against the order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice of 07.05.2025.
Note on presentation: the original submission comprises 19 pages with seven thematic sections (I–VII), each supported in detail by BVerfG and EGMR case law. Owing to its length, a summary faithful to the original is reproduced below; the full wording can be viewed through the Drive link.
Applications
1. Setting aside of the presiding judge’s order of 07.05.2025 for violation of the right to be heard. 2. Providing the omitted hearing, particularly through a decision on the merits of the applications for release of appointed defence counsel from duties and access to the case file. 3. A finding that the court remained inactive in respect of these applications for over 141 days in violation of fundamental rights. 4. Consideration of all submissions filed since 17.12.2024.
I. 141 days of judicial inactivity
By letter of 10.12.2024, I applied for access to the case file (§ 147 Abs. 1 StPO); by letter of 17.12.2024, for lawyer Römer’s release from his appointment on account of continuing refusal to communicate. Both applications remained undecided for over 141 days. Only on 21.05.2025 did I receive judicial documents for the first time. Under BVerfGE 88, 118 (126 f.), excessively prolonged inactivity without a comprehensible reason constitutes a violation of Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
II. Effectively without a defence
There had been no communication with lawyer Römer since September 2024. On 16.12.2024, I revoked the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the decision of 07.05.2025 relied to a substantial extent on lawyer Römer’s statement of 07.01.2025, which was never sent to me.
III. Ignored declarations in lieu of oath
On 13.03.2025, I submitted several declarations in lieu of oath concerning the defence situation to the BGH (receipt 18.03.2025), which were not even mentioned in the order of 07.05.2025.
IV. Systematic refusal of access to the case file
Between 10.12.2024 and 07.04.2025, I repeatedly applied for access to the case file under § 147 StPO, without any response — despite the documented effective absence of a defence, which under the case law (including Dortmund Regional Court (LG Dortmund), order of 06.07.2016 – 36 Qs 38/16) gives rise to a direct personal right of access to the file.
V. Incorrect findings of fact concerning entry on the record
The order asserts that I “was not prevented from making further objections on substantive-law grounds” — although I was actively refused this on more than eight occasions between 14.03. and 05.05.2025 (declaration in lieu of oath, Annex 23/F2).
VI. A one-sided statement as the basis for the decision
The decision relies on lawyer Römer’s undisclosed statement of 07.01.2025 — a violation of equality of arms and Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (see EGMR Dombo Beheer/Niederlande, Ruiz-Mateos/Spanien).
VII. Outlook towards a constitutional complaint and the EGMR
This complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard serves to exhaust legal remedies (§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG; Art. 34 EMRK) as a prerequisite for a constitutional complaint and an individual application to the EGMR. The violations described fulfil several types of violation recognised in EGMR case law (Hadjianastassiou/Griechenland, Foucher/Frankreich, Eckle/Deutschland).
Berlin, 26.05.2025. Dmitry Bagrash
Document source
Annex 39_F2 (covering letter): Anlage_39_F2.pdf • Annex 49_F2: Anlage_49_F2.pdf • Annex 50_F2: Anlage_50_F2.pdf • Annex 51_F2: Anlage_51_F2.pdf • Annex 38_F2 (declaration in lieu of oath): see F2-072.
Note on Anlage_39_F2_Zustellung: The file stored under this name in the Drive index (link) actually contains a return receipt for tracking number RR 9203 6288 7DE (service on the Federal Constitutional Court on 26.06.2025), rather than the evidence of service on the BGH on 27.05.2025 for RR 90 614035 4DE expected here. It is therefore probably the same document that already belongs to the application for restoration to the previous procedural position under F2-091 (Annex 52_F2) — apparently a mix-up in the original file naming. The actual evidence of service on the BGH on 27.05.2025 is not separately available here.