Complaint under substantive administrative supervision (Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde) to the Berlin Senate Department for Justice

Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To the Berlin Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection, substantive administrative supervision / supervision of the operation of the ordinary courts, Salzburger Straße 21–25, 10825 Berlin. Großbeeren, 06.09.2025.

Subject: Complaint under substantive administrative supervision concerning the organisation of proceedings and correction practice at the Berlin Regional Court (22nd major criminal chamber, Schwurgericht — chamber for serious crimes) in case 522 Ks 5/23 (176 Js 4/22 V).

The subject is the organisational treatment of my case at the Berlin Regional Court and compliance with the rule of law, in particular: (1) a correction order of 30.07.2025 which purports to subsequently “insert after the operative part of the judgment” a list of the provisions applied, without information on legal remedies; (2) the lack of acknowledgment of receipt of my (immediate) complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against it of 26./27.08.2025; (3) the lack of information on legal remedies also in the judgment of 22.07.2024. I have informed you about the complaint under administrative supervision (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) to the President of the Berlin Regional Court of 06.09.2025 for better coordination.

I. Addressee and powers

I am aware that judicial decisions on the merits fall within judicial independence (Art. 97 GG). My complaint therefore seeks no substantive influence on judicial decision-making, but concerns substantive administrative and organisational supervision: proper notification, information on legal remedies, handling submissions, the limits of permissible corrections, management of the case file, registry activity and communication.

III. Legal assessment (extract)

1. What is a “clerical error / error in pronouncement”? Under settled BGH case law, after the judgment has been pronounced in full only obvious clerical errors or manifest inaccuracies may be corrected; an error is “obvious” only if it is readily apparent from the document or from circumstances clearly known to all participants (BGH 2 StR 290/14; confirmed, inter alia, by 2 StR 56/22). Merely stating “There is an obvious clerical error” is insufficient.

2. Changing the operative part of a final judgment? The BGH reiterates: corrections to the operative part are permissible only to bring the document into agreement with what was actually decided/pronounced, not for subsequent substantive correction or supplementation (BGH 2 StR 265/22; 2 StR 290/14). A list of provisions first inserted one year later under the label “correction” does not meet the strict requirements for a manifest error and is ineffective.

3. “Judgment without the provisions applied” — legal significance: Under § 260 Abs. 5 StPO, the provisions applied are listed after the operative part of the judgment; § 267 StPO requires the grounds of the judgment to identify the criminal statute applied. The list of provisions applied forms part of neither the operative part nor the grounds; defects in the list do not sustain an appeal on points of law (Revision) (BGH 2 StR 280/07; 1 StR 24/06). Even if the list was originally absent, this does not justify subsequently supplementing the substance of the operative-part document by “correction”.

4. Missing information on legal remedies: When decisions subject to a time-limited appeal are notified, information on legal remedies must be given (§ 35a StPO); missing a time limit for a remedy is deemed not to be the person’s fault if that information was omitted (§ 44 S. 2 StPO). Its absence both in the judgment of 22.07.2024 and in the order of 30.07.2025 violates § 35a StPO.

5. Organisational / registry deficiencies: The lack of acknowledgment of receipt and of a status notification concerning my complaint is contrary to basic organisational duties of a registry and impairs effective legal protection (Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG).

IV. Requests under substantive administrative supervision

1. Examination of correction practice at the Berlin Regional Court under substantive administrative supervision, to ensure corrections remain within the narrow BGH limits. 2. Official instruction / organisational guidance to the registries concerned: immediate acknowledgment of receipt, timely status notification, consistent application of § 35a StPO. 3. Coordination with the President of the Berlin Regional Court. 4. Notification of the outcome within four weeks.

Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash