Filing my constitutional complaint

Dmitry Bagrasch, JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren, B.-Nr. 327/25-7 — To the Bundesverfassungsgericht, Schlossbezirk 3, 76131 Karlsruhe. Berlin, 24.11.2025. Constitutional complaint.

I. Complainant

Dmitry Bagrasch, born on 09.05.1968 in Moscow / Russian Federation, currently at Heidering prison (Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering), Buch-Nr.: 327/25-7, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren.

II. Challenged decisions

1. Order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court — 3rd Criminal Senate — of 31.10.2025 — Az.: 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25, served on 07.11.2025, rejecting as inadmissible my complaint against the order of the Berlin I Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin I) of 30.07.2025 correcting the judgment and rejecting as inadmissible my remedy described as an “immediate complaint” (sofortige Beschwerde) against the failure to forward my complaint to the court hearing the complaint in time.

2. Indirectly: the Berlin I Regional Court correction order of 30.07.2025 in proceedings 522 Ks 5/23 (176 Js 4/22 V), received by me on 07.08.2025, and the failure of the Berlin Regional Court to refer my complaint of 26.08.2025 against this correction order to the competent court hearing the complaint in accordance with § 306 Abs. 2 Halbs. 2 StPO.

III. Requests

The complainant requests: 1. a finding that the order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court of 31.10.2025 — 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25 — violates his fundamental rights under Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG (the right to the judge designated by law), Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GG in conjunction with the right of access to justice arising from the rule of law (Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG), and Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG (the prohibition of arbitrariness); 2. that the order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court of 31.10.2025 be set aside and the matter remitted to the Kammergericht for a fresh decision; 3. alternatively, a finding that the failure of the Berlin Regional Court to refer the complaint in time to the court hearing the complaint and the correction order of 30.07.2025 violate those fundamental rights.

IV. Admissibility

1. Standing to bring the complaint: The complainant submits that the challenged decisions currently, personally and directly affect his fundamental rights. The correction order of 30.07.2025 interferes with the finality of the judgment of the Berlin I Regional Court of 22.07.2024 and retrospectively — after finality and the decision on the appeal on points of law — establishes an extensive list of “provisions applied” for the first time. The failure to forward his complaint against it and its rejection by the Kammergericht exclude effective protection in the ordinary courts.

2. Exhaustion of judicial remedies: No further remedy in the ordinary courts is available against the Kammergericht order of 31.10.2025. Judicial remedies within the criminal procedural system have been exhausted (§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG). No complaint under § 33a StPO is raised here; the constitutional complaint relies on the right of access to justice, Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG and Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG.

3. Time limit: The challenged order was served on 07.11.2025; the constitutional complaint is lodged within the one-month time limit under § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG.

4. Form: The constitutional complaint is lodged in writing and states its grounds (§ 23 Abs. 1, § 92 BVerfGG).

V. Facts

1. Original proceedings and judgment of the Berlin I Regional Court: The complainant was convicted by judgment of the Berlin I Regional Court of 22.07.2024 in proceedings 522 Ks 5/23 (prosecution: 176 Js 4/22 V). The written judgment did not contain a list of the provisions applied under § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO. The complainant lodged an appeal on points of law (Revision) against the judgment; the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) rejected it. The judgment thereby became final.

2. Correction order of 30.07.2025: By order of 30.07.2025, the Berlin I Regional Court — more than a year after pronouncement of the judgment and after completion of the appeal on points of law — issued a so-called “correction order”, adding an extensive list of “provisions applied” to the written judgment for the first time (including §§ 211, 248c, 263a, 303, 306a, 306c, 22, 23, 49, 52, 53, 73 StGB). The reasons stated that this was an “obvious clerical error”. The order contained no notice of available remedies. It was served on 07.08.2025.

3. Complaint against the correction order: By written submission of 26.08.2025, the complainant lodged a complaint under § 304 StPO, alternatively an immediate complaint, a request for restoration of the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung) and, alternatively, a request for reconsideration by the deciding court (Gegenvorstellung) against the order of 30.07.2025, arguing that the subsequent inclusion of an extensive list of provisions was a substantive alteration of the final judgment rather than a mere clerical error.

4. Inaction and failure of the Regional Court to forward the complaint: Despite proof of receipt, there was neither an acknowledgment nor referral of the complaint to the court hearing the complaint. The complainant therefore addressed an administrative supervision complaint to the President of the Regional Court on 05.09.2025, a complaint concerning substantive supervision to the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz) on 06.09.2025, a status inquiry and request for referral under § 306 Abs. 2 StPO on 17.09.2025, and also an objection to delay under § 198 Abs. 3 GVG on 17.09.2025. By letter of 23.09.2025, the Regional Court stated that it had forwarded the submissions to the Berlin General Public Prosecutor’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin); there was no referral to the competent court hearing the complaint.

5. Request to the Kammergericht for referral: By written submission of 06.10.2025, the complainant addressed the Berlin Higher Regional Court directly. He requested that his complaint be treated as pending and decided, and complained of the Regional Court’s systematic failure to forward it.

6. Kammergericht order of 31.10.2025: By order of 31.10.2025 (3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25), the Kammergericht rejected the complaint against the correction order as inadmissible because the addition to the list of provisions did not adversely affect the complainant, and rejected the remedy described as an “immediate complaint” against the failure to forward it in time as not procedurally available, since § 306 Abs. 2 Halbs. 2 StPO was merely a “directory provision (Sollvorschrift) without procedural consequences”. Costs were imposed on the complainant; the order contained no notice of available remedies.

VI. Alleged violations of fundamental rights

1. Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GG in conjunction with the right of access to justice (Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG): The right to effective judicial protection follows from the general right of access to justice. § 306 Abs. 2 Halbsatz 2 StPO requires the court of first instance, if it does not grant relief on a complaint, to refer it to the court hearing the complaint “immediately, at the latest before three days have elapsed”. In its order of 23.01.2023 — 2 BvR 1343/22 — the Federal Constitutional Court held that this provision creates a binding obligation. In this case, the Regional Court did not refer the complaint within the three-day period and made no referral despite the objection to delay and repeated status inquiries; instead, it merely forwarded the submissions to the General Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Kammergericht declares § 306 Abs. 2 StPO a “mere directory provision” without procedural consequences, thereby turning the binding referral obligation into its opposite.

2. Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG (the judge designated by law): The Kammergericht is the judge designated by law for complaints against orders of the Regional Court. Because the Regional Court does not refer the complaint and the Kammergericht does not correct this deprivation but declares that a remedy against the failure to refer is not procedurally available, the complainant remains stranded in “no man’s land” between the Regional Court and the Kammergericht.

3. Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GG in conjunction with the rule of law (impermissible subsequent correction of the judgment): Corrections of judgments are permissible only in cases of manifest error. In this case, an extensive list of provisions was inserted for the first time more than a year after finality and after completion of the appeal on points of law (including §§ 306a, 306c, 73 StGB) — not the correction of a typographical error but the first determination of the chain of provisions after the judgment became final. The Kammergericht does not examine whether the conditions for a permissible correction exist at all, thereby refusing any review in the ordinary courts.

4. Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG (prohibition of arbitrariness): The Kammergericht’s interpretation of § 306 Abs. 2 StPO as a “mere directory provision without procedural consequences” departs so far from the statutory wording and the constitutional court’s assessment of the provision that it no longer appears comprehensible. Taken together (failure to refer, forwarding to the prosecution, ignoring the objection to delay and refusing substantive review), these actions systematically exclude the complainant from effective judicial protection.

VII. Evidence

1. Correction order of the Berlin I Regional Court of 30.07.2025 (Annex 1); 2. Judgment of the Berlin I Regional Court of 22.07.2024 (Annex 2); 3. Written complaint of 26.08.2025 (Annex 3); 4. Letter of the Berlin Regional Court of 23.09.2025 (Annex 4); 5. Written submission to the Kammergericht of 06.10.2025 (Annex 5); 6. Kammergericht order of 31.10.2025 (Annex 6); 7. “Case 2” chronology with posting and receipt entries (Annex 7); 8. Proof of service of the KG order on 07.11.2025 (Annex 8).

VIII. Concluding observation

Taken as a whole, this case shows a substantively questionable correction of a judgment after it became final, obstruction of the statutory complaint route by failing to forward the complaint, and refusal by the Kammergericht of any effective review in the ordinary courts. This violates the complainant’s fundamental rights under Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG, Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GG in conjunction with the right of access to justice arising from the rule of law, and Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG.

Karlsruhe, 24.11.2025, Dmitry Bagrasch