1The dismissed appeal on points of law as evidence that there is nothing to object to
The letter dated 01.07.2025, received by me on 15.07.2025, bears file reference 176 Js 4/22. Its statement of reasons consists entirely of two sentences:
“Following examination, I am unable to identify any procedural violations. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) reached the same conclusion when, by order of 07.05.2025, it dismissed your Revision (appeal on points of law) against the judgment of Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I).”
The occasion was provided by my letters of 26.03., 09.04. and 24.04.2025 to the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (Berlin Senate Department for Justice), which forwarded them. In my assessment, the reply does not address the specific facts I raised — the missing list of provisions applied and the denial of access to the court registry officer (Urkundsbeamter).
§ 147 GVG (supervision) · § 160 Abs. 2 StPO · § 260 Abs. 5 StPO
Significance: At the time of the letter, the list of provisions had not yet been added at all — that happened only on 30.07.2025. The appeal on points of law referred to thus concerned a judgment that did not contain the list.
Chronology No. 95 ·
No. 106Alternative hypothesisA complaint under administrative supervision against judicial decisions on the merits may receive a brief response because Art. 97 GG excludes a substantive review by the supervisory authority in any event.
What is missingAn examination of the purely factual points, independent of any review on the merits — dates of service, time limits — which nevertheless remained unanswered.
2The same authority in all subsequent proceedings
The submission of 26.05.2026 opposing my early release (Annex 148_F2) and the submission of 14.07.2026 in the appeal proceedings (Annex 149_F2) came from the same authority.
§ 147 GVG · § 454 StPO
Alternative hypothesisThe same authority naturally handles all proceedings concerning the same defendant — that reflects jurisdiction, not a chain of connected actions.
What is missingAn indication of whether the later submissions were prepared independently of the earlier ones or refer back to them.
Sources: Annexes 89_F2, 148_F2, 149_F2 · Case 2 chronology, No. 95. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.