Case 1 · Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I), Az. 522 Ks 5/23 · correction order of 30.07.2025
Annex 65_F2 — the list of provisions added 373 days later
What this concerns. § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO mandatorily requires a criminal judgment to contain the list of criminal provisions applied. That list is entirely absent from the version of my judgment delivered and formally issued on 22.07.2024. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) decided on the appeal on points of law (Revision) against precisely that incomplete version on 07.05.2025.
Only through this order of 30.07.2025 — 373 days after delivery — Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) subsequently inserted the list of provisions. As its explanation, the order gives a single sentence under the heading “Reasons:”: “There is an obvious clerical error.” It explains neither when and how the error was noticed nor why the amendment remained possible after the judgment became final and after the BGH’s decision on the appeal on points of law (Revision).
Assessment by Dmitry Bagrash: I regard this as a substantive amendment of a final judgment rather than a clerical error. That is my assessment; the wording of the order itself is a fact that can be checked in the original.
Opposing position: The 3rd Criminal Division of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) (Grieß, Sandherr, Brandt, Walters) dismissed my appeal against this correction order as inadmissible on 31.10.2025 — reasoning that the subsequently inserted list was not part of the operative judgment and therefore created no adverse effect giving standing to appeal (Beschwer). To my knowledge, no examination was made of whether such a supplement is permissible at all after the judgment becomes final.
Connection: Detailed comparison and full quotations in the annotated judgment · Kammergericht decision on this: Dossier Grieß et al., point 1.
Only through this order of 30.07.2025 — 373 days after delivery — Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) subsequently inserted the list of provisions. As its explanation, the order gives a single sentence under the heading “Reasons:”: “There is an obvious clerical error.” It explains neither when and how the error was noticed nor why the amendment remained possible after the judgment became final and after the BGH’s decision on the appeal on points of law (Revision).
Assessment by Dmitry Bagrash: I regard this as a substantive amendment of a final judgment rather than a clerical error. That is my assessment; the wording of the order itself is a fact that can be checked in the original.
Opposing position: The 3rd Criminal Division of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) (Grieß, Sandherr, Brandt, Walters) dismissed my appeal against this correction order as inadmissible on 31.10.2025 — reasoning that the subsequently inserted list was not part of the operative judgment and therefore created no adverse effect giving standing to appeal (Beschwer). To my knowledge, no examination was made of whether such a supplement is permissible at all after the judgment becomes final.
Connection: Detailed comparison and full quotations in the annotated judgment · Kammergericht decision on this: Dossier Grieß et al., point 1.