Application for an interim order under § 32 BVerfGG

Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To the Bundesverfassungsgericht, Schlossbezirk 3, 76131 Karlsruhe. Berlin, 30.06.2025.

Subject: Application for an interim order under § 32 BVerfGG. In the matter of the constitutional complaints already pending (Az. AR1067/25), (1) against the order of the 5th Criminal Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of 07.05.2025 (Az.: 5 StR 72/25), (2) and against the separate order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of the same day, I hereby request the immediate issuance of an interim order under § 32 BVerfGG to avert continuing irreparable violations of fundamental rights.

I. Requests

1. The Bundesgerichtshof is to be ordered to issue me immediately with a written acknowledgement of receipt under § 37 StPO for my complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard under § 356a StPO, submitted between 26 and 28 May 2025 both in writing by post and through an attempt to submit them for the record. 2. Heidering correctional facility is to be ordered to grant me immediate access to a court registry officer.

II. Facts and explanation of the urgency

I have been held at JVA Heidering since 10 June 2025, after being transferred from JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison) without advance notice. Since my transfer I have been subjected to systematic and documented obstruction of justice and denial of legal protection.

III. Documented and systematic diversion from justice

1. Prevention of access to registry officers: Despite repeated written applications, to this day I have not once been brought before a registry officer at JVA Heidering. Ms Dahms’s oral refusal of my appointment on 13.06.2025 constitutes an unlawful usurpation of authority, because only the court may decide on compliance with the time limit or the admissibility of a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard.

2. Arbitrary refusal of working materials: Immediately after the transfer I was without writing materials for days — particularly a ballpoint pen — because they were either refused altogether or deferred to a purchase date several weeks later. Even basic items such as soap and shaving supplies were blocked.

3. Sabotage of correspondence concerning legal remedies by JVA Moabit and Heidering: Even at JVA Moabit my correspondence was systematically forwarded late or not at all. This situation continued without interruption after the transfer.

4. Psychological pressure and isolation: The measures described not only violate formal rights but also have a targeted psychological effect: I am placed in a state of permanent legal uncertainty and institutional helplessness.

IV. Legal assessment

The conditions for an interim order are evidently met: unavoidable serious disadvantages (loss of rights in highly significant proceedings on an appeal on points of law (Revision) and constitutional proceedings, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG); no less restrictive means apparent (repeated applications, complaints and declarations in lieu of oath received no response); evident prospects of success on the merits.

V. Legal bases

§ 32 BVerfGG; Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG; Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 6 Abs. 1 und 3 EMRK; BVerfGE 93, 1 (13); 107, 395 (401); 112, 185 (207); EGMR (European Court of Human Rights): Foucher/Frankreich (1997), Garcia Alva/Deutschland (2001).

Annexes: Declaration in lieu of oath of 19.06.2025; declaration in lieu of oath of 20.06.2025; Case 2 chronology; Annex 48_F2 (complaint to the Senate Department); Annex 24_F2 (application for an interim order); Annex 31_F2 (application for a judicial decision on account of inactivity under § 198 GVG).

Yours sincerely, Dmitry Bagrash