Last day to submit the complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard
On 28.05.2025 at 08:30, I was again brought before the registry official (Urkundsbeamter). Two documents were entered on the record:
The application for a stay of enforcement. (Annex 42_F2)
An abridged version of my complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard against the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate. The full version (20 pages) could not be handed over because of reservations by Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit). Instead, I presented the core points (4 applications, 7 points of grounds without explanation). I pointed out that the full version had reached the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) by post on 27.05.2025 with evidence of service (signature: Judge von Haefen). (Annex 41_F2)
My third 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 was not accepted for decision by the registry official (UKB) — although it had already been before the BGH since 27.05.2025. (Annex 50_F2)
Conclusion: I observed the statutory time limit despite restrictions on postal service and refusal by the registry official (UKB).
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
I received no acknowledgement of receipt under §37 StPO
The full versions of the complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard were already before the Federal Court of Justice on 27.05.2025, including an express reference to obstruction by the registry clerk (Urkundsbeamtin). (See point 73)
Tiergarten Local Court (Amtsgericht Tiergarten) at JVA Moabit. Mr Bagrash, Dmitry, register number 2796/22/6, appeared, Berlin, 28.05.2025, and declared for the record of the judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin): application for a stay of enforcement under § 356a StPO in conjunction with Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG against the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the BGH of 07.05.2025 (case reference: 5 StR 72/25).
I. Application
In addition to my complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO, I hereby apply for a stay of enforcement of the BGH decision of 07.05.25, served on me on 21.05.25, until a decision on that complaint.
II. Grounds
The challenged decision violates my constitutionally guaranteed right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG. The BGH did not consider essential submissions in my grounds of appeal. I duly lodged a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard against that violation. I am currently serving a prison sentence at JVA Moabit, so the decision is already being enforced, although it may be set aside for violation of the right to be heard. To secure effective legal protection under Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG, I therefore apply for a provisional stay of enforcement until a final decision on the complaint lodged.
Reference to the detailed grounds in the same terms sent by post on 27.05.2025 (Annex 46_F2).
Read, approved, signed. Applicant. To the Federal Court of Justice in Leipzig, case reference: 5 StR 72/25. Judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin).
Tiergarten Local Court at JVA Moabit. Mr Bagrash, Dmitry, register number 2796/22/6, appeared, Berlin, 28.05.2025, and declared 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 presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the BGH of 07.05.2025 (case reference: 5 StR 72/25).
I. Application
I hereby lodge a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO against the order of the presiding judge of the Federal Court of Justice of 07.05.2025. I apply for: 1. Setting aside of the order of 07.05.2025; 2. full provision of the omitted hearing, particularly through a decision on the merits of my 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 141 days in violation of fundamental rights; 4. consideration of all submissions filed since 17.12.2024.
II. Grounds (core points)
1. The judicial authorities remained inactive concerning my application for access to the file and my application for lawyer Römer’s release from his appointment for 140 and 150 days respectively — denial of justice through silence. 2. Since early September 2024, I have had no effective contact with my appointed defence counsel and am therefore effectively without a defence. 3. Despite proven receipt by the BGH, my declarations in lieu of oath were ignored. 4. I was systematically refused access to the file. 5. Until 05.05.2025, I was systematically refused entry of submissions on the record at the registry. 6. On 07.01.2025, lawyer Römer made a statement concerning my application for his release from appointment, on which I have not been granted a hearing to this day; there is a suspicion of partiality on the part of the 5th Senate.
In conclusion, I refer to my detailed 20-page application under § 356a StPO received by post with the letter of 26.05.25 (Annex 51_F2), and to the evidence of postal service countersigned by Judge Mario von Häfen.
Read, approved, signed. Applicant. To the Federal Court of Justice in Leipzig, case reference: 5 StR 72/25. Judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin).
Document source
Annex 42_F2 (record of the application for a stay): Anlage_42_F2.pdf; Annex 41_F2 (record of the complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard against the presiding judge): Anlage_41_F2.pdf
Annex 50_F2 (the third complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard, complaint concerning failure to decide) is already reproduced in full under F2-073. The detailed version of the application for a stay, sent by post, is documented under F2-079 (Annex 46_F2).