Application for restoration to the previous procedural position under § 93 Abs
2 Satz 2 BVerfGG
On 24.06.2025 I submit to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), in the alternative, an application for restoration to the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) under § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG. This application is made in the context of my constitutional complaints against the order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of 07.05.2025. The application is prompted by the documented postal delivery problems, particularly DHL’s non-delivery of my complaints originally sent within the time limit on 16.06.2025.
(Annex 52_F2) Delivery to the Bundesverfassungsgericht on 26.06.2025
(Tracking number: RR 9203 6288 7DE)
Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To the Bundesverfassungsgericht, Schlossbezirk 3, 76131 Karlsruhe. Berlin, 24.06.2025.
Subject: Alternative application for restoration to the previous procedural position under § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG. Constitutional complaint against the order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof of 07.05.2025 (received 21.05.2025 — case number: 5 StR 72/25).
Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby apply, in the alternative, for restoration to the previous procedural position under § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG. I sent my constitutional complaints (case number: AR 1067/25) against the order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof of 07.05.2025 to the Bundesverfassungsgericht by registered post within the time limit on 16 June 2025.
According to DHL’s notification of 17.06.2025, my shipments unexpectedly could not be delivered and are currently on their way back to me. The DHL entries in each case read: “Unfortunately, delivery of the shipment was not possible”. The corresponding DHL tracking numbers are: 00340434391788509015 and 00340434391788509022.
To ensure compliance with the time limit nevertheless, I sent both constitutional complaints, including all annexes (case number AR 1067/25), by fax to 0721/9101-382 between 20.06.2025 and 22.06.2025. The transmission reports for these faxes are in the enclosed annexes and unambiguously document submission within the time limit.
However, because of technical difficulties and an inadvertent mistake, I transmitted the same constitutional complaint twice by fax instead of submitting two different complaints. Ms Weber of the Bundesverfassungsgericht informed me of this mistake by telephone today. Immediately after learning of the mistake, I sent the correct second constitutional complaint by fax today, 24.06.2025, at 12:35.
I am not responsible for the original postal delivery, which was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, as a precaution I will send all documents again by post to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, although they have already been successfully transmitted by fax. I therefore respectfully request restoration to the previous procedural position and confirmation of receipt of this application and all documents.
Yours sincerely, Dimitri Bagrash
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The application for restoration to the previous procedural position under § 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG was necessary because the time limit was jeopardised precisely by the conduct of state authorities: refusal to take an official record, lack of a ballpoint pen and delayed post. An applicant who was not at fault for missing the deadline but was prevented from complying with it is the classic case to which this provision applies.
Source of the document
Annex 52_F2 (application for restoration to the previous procedural position of 24.06.2025): Anlage_52_F2.pdf; proof of dispatch: Anlage_52_F2_RR 9203 6288 7DE_26.05.2025.pdf; scan: Anlage_52_F2scan.pdf
The parallel application for electronic delivery of the same day is documented at F2-092.