On 15.01.2025 at 11:55, I received the order of 08.01.2025 in response to my application for a judicial decision of 09.09.2024. The order stated: “The application for a judicial decision is rejected as inadmissible.”
As grounds, Groß, presiding judge at the Regional Court (VRiLG),Presiding judge at the Berlin Regional Court I in criminal case 522 Ks 5/23. Dmitry Bagrash publicly alleges that he subsequently altered the judgment; on 02.09.2026 he filed a criminal complaint over this. No decision has yet been made on the complaint; the presumption of innocence applies. wrongly relied on § 119 StPO. The processing time was 120 days, which constitutes a substantial delay. Even in the notice of available remedies attached to this order, VRiLG Groß specified neither the time limit nor the form of submission under §35 StPO.
In the context of the other circumstances, the defective notice of available remedies must be assessed as an act of deception. The notice attached to the order has conspicuous characteristics of a specially produced version. (Annex 29_F3).
Documents / annexes
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The order was issued after 120 days and relies on the position that my concern had become moot with the lifting of the detention restrictions — although the issue was contact with the religious community, not § 119 StPO. In addition, in my assessment, the attached notice of available remedies shows signs of having been assembled from two different templates; a separate account of this is in preparation (Annex 29_F3).