First complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard entered on the record by UKB (registry official) (complaint under § 356a StPO against the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice of 07.05.2025)

Tiergarten Local Court (Amtsgericht Tiergarten) at JVA Moabit. Mr Bagrash, Dmitry, currently held at JVA Moabit under register number 2796/22/6, appeared and declared, Berlin, 27.05.2025, for the record of the judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin): complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the BGH of 07.05.2025 (case reference: 5 StR 72/25 — received: 21.05.2025).

I. Application

I hereby lodge a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the Federal Court of Justice order of 07.05.2025, as it violates in several respects my right to be heard (Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG), the requirement of effective legal protection (Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG) and my procedural rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure (particularly § 345 Abs. 2, § 37 StPO). I apply for: 1. Setting aside of the order of 07.05.2025. 2. Full provision of the omitted hearing, particularly through individual examination on the merits of all my submitted supplements to the grounds of appeal (parts 1 to 7 and the coronavirus emergency aid supplement), and my then appointed defence counsel’s original appeal submission. 3. Renewed deliberation of the appeal proceedings by the 5th Criminal Senate. 4. A decision on the application for an interim order lodged on 15.03.2025, and 5. a decision on my application of 07.04.2025 for a judicial finding of inactivity by the BGH under § 198 GVG.

II. Grounds (core points)

1. Unconsidered essential submissions: The order of 07.05.2025 merely states in a formulaic way that the supplements to the grounds of appeal “were before the Senate and were the subject of its deliberations”. This assertion has no discernible connection with the actual content of my comprehensive supplements (serious errors in the assessment of evidence, prohibition of political motivation in reaching a judgment, failure to consider my final statement, contradictions as to commission of the act in the coronavirus emergency aid matter, technical refutations of the USBV allegations, and deliberate obstruction of supplement submission by judicial personnel).

2. Failure to consider my defence counsel’s appeal submission: Nor did the original grounds of appeal, submitted within the time limit by my then appointed defence counsel, receive any discernible substantive assessment.

3. Ignored applications of my own to the BGH: The Federal Court of Justice decided neither my applications for an interim order (13./15.03.2025) nor my application for a finding of inactivity (07.04.2025).

4. Systematic sabotage by lower instances: Registry officials systematically refused my supplements to the grounds of appeal between 15.01. and 05.05.2025, sometimes invoking untenable assertions about deadlines, and they were entered on the record only from 05.05. to 20.05.2025 — thus after deliberation and signature of the order. This gives rise to the suspicion that the existence of these submissions was deliberately suppressed or delayed.

III. Additional matter: putting aside the applications for release of appointed defence counsel from duties and access to the case file

By a separate order of 07.05.2025, my application of 17.12.2024 for lawyer Römer’s release from his appointment and my applications for access to the case file were “put aside”. “Putting aside” is not a statutory instrument for applications relevant to the proceedings; applications under §§ 143a, 147 StPO are ready for decision and must be decided positively or negatively. The applications were lodged repeatedly (17.12.2024, 13.01.2025, 21.01.2025) and unlawfully ignored until 07.05.2025. Since September 2024, I had effectively been without a defence, knowledge of the file or legal assistance, while the court simultaneously prevented me from exercising my own rights.

IV. Constitutional-law foundations (extract)

Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG requires the court to take note of and consider the parties’ submissions (BVerfGE 47, 182; 86, 133; 101, 106). Effective legal protection requires that legal remedies can actually be used (BVerfGE 93, 1; 101, 397; 112, 185). Procedural delays that prevent the use of procedural opportunities violate Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (BVerfGE 46, 166; 55, 1; 94, 166). A court hearing an appeal on points of law must address all admissible grounds of appeal (BVerfG NJW 1986, 105; BVerfGE 54, 43). Denial of the final statement constitutes a violation of the right to be heard (BVerfG NJW 2007, 1065). Criminal proceedings may not be misused to discipline political activity (BVerfG, order of 22.05.2001 – 1 BvR 2049/00). Judicial inactivity may fulfil the elements of perversion of justice (Rechtsbeugung) (BVerfG NJW 2003, 1655; BVerfGE 117, 71). A court violates Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG if it fails to decide an application relevant to its decision (BVerfGE 60, 305; 46, 212). Where trust has been persistently breached, the release of appointed defence counsel from duties must be decided (BVerfG, order of 18.06.2015 – 2 BvR 1614/14); Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. c EMRK guarantees an effective defence (EGMR Imbrioscia/Schweiz). Access to the case file may be refused only exceptionally (EGMR Brandstetter/Österreich).

Read, approved, signed. Applicant. To the Federal Court of Justice in Leipzig, case reference: 5 StR 72/25. Judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin).