Submission of a cascade of complaints to Berlin Regional Court (LG Berlin)

Dmitry Bagrash, Heidering Prison (JVA Heidering), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) — 22nd large criminal chamber, Schwurgericht, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. Berlin, 26.08.2025. Copy to: Senate Department for Justice, Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), European Court of Human Rights (EGMR). Case reference: 522 Ks 5/23 (LG Berlin) — 176 Js 4/22 V (GenStA Berlin — Berlin General Public Prosecutor’s Office).

Subject: Complaint; alternatively, immediate complaint; reinstatement to the previous procedural position; alternatively, a complaint concerning denial of the right to be heard (§ 33a StPO) and a request for reconsideration (Gegenvorstellung). Subject matter: order of Berlin Regional Court of 30.07.2025 (“rectification” of the judgment of 22.07.2024 by the first inclusion of the list of applied provisions); served with the letter of 05.08.2025.

Applications

1. Set aside the order of Berlin Regional Court of 30.07.2025. 2. Find that the so-called “rectification” is impermissible because it changes the operative part of the judgment substantively and after finality; the subsequent first inclusion of the applied criminal provisions (“§§ 211, 248c, 263a, 303, 306a, 306c, 22, 23, 49, 52, 53, 73 StGB”) is not correction of an obvious clerical error. 3. Reinstatement to the previous procedural position in respect of any one-week time limit that may have been missed, because no information on legal remedies was provided and, as a detainee without legal representation, I was thereby prevented from meeting the time limit through no fault of my own (§ 44 StPO). 4. Alternatively: complaint concerning denial of the right to be heard (§ 33a StPO). The order was issued without a hearing, although it interferes with finality and defence rights. 5. Alternatively: request for reconsideration (Gegenvorstellung).

Facts

On 22.07.2024, the 22nd large criminal chamber delivered judgment against me. The operative part contains no list of applied provisions, although § 267 Abs. 6 StPO makes this mandatory. On 30.07.2025, the same chamber “rectified” the judgment by order, adding a list of applied provisions for the first time and giving the general explanation of an “obvious clerical error”. It was sent with a covering letter of 05.08.2025; information on legal remedies is absent.

Merits

1. Not a “clerical error”, but an impermissible substantive amendment of the operative part after finality: The first inclusion of the entire list of provisions concerns the operative part itself and is not merely correction of a transcription/typing error. What was absent at delivery cannot be newly created after finality by invoking a “clerical error”. The chamber thereby shifts a substantive addition into the formal rectification procedure. This violates the protection of finality and undermines the final character of the decision after completion of the appeal on points of law.

2. Review on points of law of an incomplete judgment: The appeal on points of law was decided against a judgment that did not contain the statutory minimum. A later addition cannot cure this defect retroactively; this violates Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG and Art. 6 EMRK.

3. Absence of information on legal remedies: The order was sent without information on legal remedies. As a detainee without defence counsel, I was thereby prevented through no fault of my own from exercising an appropriate legal remedy within the time limit.

4. Violation of the right to be heard: The order was issued without a prior hearing, although it significantly affects my position concerning finality and my defence rights.

Reinstatement to the previous procedural position (§ 44 StPO)

As a precaution, I apply for reinstatement to the previous procedural position in respect of the one-week time limit for lodging the (immediate) complaint. Grounds: no information on legal remedies; detention with restricted communication and access to files; no mandate to defence counsel at the time of receipt; immediate action after becoming aware.

Annexes: Certified copy of the order of 30.07.2025 (Berlin Regional Court, 22nd large criminal chamber).

Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash