The Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) again refuses substantive examination and completely ignores procedural errors
On 31 October 2025, the Kammergericht (3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25) rejected both my complaint against the Berlin Regional Court order of 30 July 2025 and my remedy described as an “immediate complaint” against the unlawful and delayed forwarding of my complaint by the Regional Court. This occurred without any substantive examination of the actual allegation:
that the Regional Court subsequently amended the judgmentThe judgment of LG Berlin of 22.07.2024 initially contained no list of the provisions applied (§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO). This was added only on 30.07.2025 — 373 days later and after the BGH decision. of 22.07.2024,
that my complaint was not forwarded within the time limit, although § 306 Abs. 2 StPO provides a three-day period,
that this delay effectively frustrated my legal remedies.
The Kammergericht formally declared the remedies “inadmissible”, instead of examining the serious breach of the forwarding obligation or the subsequent amendment of the judgmentThe judgment of LG Berlin of 22.07.2024 initially contained no list of the provisions applied (§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO). This was added only on 30.07.2025 — 373 days later and after the BGH decision.. (Annex 82_F2)
Certified copy. Kammergericht. Case reference: 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25. 176 Js 4/22 V Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office. 522 Ks 5/23 Berlin I Regional Court. Received 7.11.25.
Order in the criminal proceedings against Dmitry Bagrash, born on 09.05.1968 in Moscow/Russian Federation, currently at Heidering correctional facility (Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering), register no. 327/25-7, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren, concerning attempted murder and other offences.
The Kammergericht — 3rd Criminal Senate — ordered on 31 October 2025: the convicted person’s complaint against the Berlin I Regional Court order of 30 July 2025 and his remedy described as an immediate complaint against the failure to forward his complaint against that order within the time limit are rejected. The convicted person shall bear the costs of his remedies.
Reasons
I.1. The complaint against the Berlin I Regional Court order of 30 July 2025, by which the convicted person alleges that the court impermissibly amended the judgment of 22 July 2024 after the event by adding the criminal-law provisions applied, is already inadmissible. A remedy is admissible only if the complainant is adversely affected by the challenged decision (see Saarbrücken Higher Regional Court (OLG Saarbrücken), order of 8 October 2024 — 1 Ws 200/24, juris; Jena Higher Regional Court (OLG Jena), order of 12 October 2020 — 1 Ws 300/20 —, juris; Schmitt in Schmitt/Köhler, StPO, 68th edition, before § 296, para. 8 with further references). That is absent here. The convicted person’s adverse position arises solely from the findings of guilt and legal consequences in the Berlin I Regional Court judgment of 22 July 2024, not from the criminal-law provisions to be stated in the judgment under § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO, which — as already follows from the wording of that provision — are not part of the operative formula of the judgment. Adding the criminal-law provisions originally not stated in the judgment therefore cannot adversely affect the convicted person.
I.2. The remedy described by the convicted person as an “immediate complaint”, by which he objects that the Regional Court did not forward his complaint against its order of 30 July 2025 within the three-day period in § 306 Abs. 2, second half-sentence StPO, is not procedurally available and is therefore also inadmissible. § 306 Abs. 2, second half-sentence StPO is merely a provision prescribing what should ordinarily be done (Sollvorschrift; see Schmitt, cited work, § 306 para. 11; Zabeck in KK-StPO, 9th edition, § 306 para. 18), with no immediate procedural consequences (see Matt in Löwe-Rosenberg, StPO, 26th edition, § 306 para. 23), and therefore does not create an independent right of complaint for the complainant.
II. The decision on costs is based on § 473 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO.
Grieß, Sandherr, Brandt. Certified as a true copy: Berlin, 03.11.2025, Akin, JSekr’in, registry clerk.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This order declared § 306 Abs. 2 StPO a provision prescribing what should ordinarily be done (Sollvorschrift) without immediate procedural consequences. I consider it the most consequential decision in the entire proceedings: if failure to refer a complaint has no consequences, any originating court can effectively suspend the statutory path through the judicial instances. This affects Art. 19 Abs. 4 and Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG.
Document source
Annex 82_F2 (Kammergericht Berlin order of 31.10.2025, 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25): Anlage 82_F2.pdf (second version: Anlage_82_F2.pdf)
This order is the subject of the constitutional complaint of 24.11.2025 (F2-128). The underlying correction order is documented under F2-106, and the preceding application for referral to the Kammergericht under F2-119.