Gabriele Cirener and others | Responsible parties

The judicial panel comprising Gabriele Cirener (presiding judge), Jan Gericke, Prof. Dr. Andreas Mosbacher, Kati Resch and Mario von Haefen decided my Revision (appeal on points of law) on 07.05.2025. This page sets out what the Division said it had before it and what of that appears in its decision. It presents my assessment and does not replace a judicial finding.

1 The Division itself confirms what was before it

The order of 07.05.2025 consists of three paragraphs. The second reads:

“The defendant’s Revision is unfounded within the meaning of § 349 Abs. 2 StPO. Review of the judgment on the basis of the grounds for the Revision has revealed no error of law to the defendant’s detriment (see the Federal Prosecutor General’s application). The defendant’s letters (‘supplements to the grounds of the Revision’) were before the Division and were the subject of deliberation.”

The order of 19.06.2025 specifies this: it concerned all letters “up to and including Part 7”.

§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO · § 267 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Significance: the question is therefore no longer whether the Division knew my grounds of challenge. It has put that on record itself. The question is what it did with them. Chronology No. 34

Alternative hypothesis Under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO, a brief order merely confirming that submissions were before the court need not address every point individually.

What is missing An indication of which submissions confirmed as being before it the Division assessed substantively and which it merely registered.

2 Index of grounds of challenge — 28 points that were before the Division

The following list is drawn exclusively from the submissions the Division described as the “subject of deliberation”. Every point was declared for the record of the Tiergarten Local Court registry at JVA Moabit (Moabit prison); the full text can be consulted via the last column. The right-hand column indicates whether the point is mentioned or decided in the order of 07.05.2025.

Submission	Recorded	Point challenged	Provision	Full text	In the order?
Part 1	20.01.2025	Final statement omitted from the judgment and interrupted by the presiding judge	§ 258 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG	F1-016	no
Part 1	20.01.2025	Placement of the device by third parties; DNA, vehicle and second mobile phone accessible to third parties	§ 261 StPO	F1-016	no
Part 1	20.01.2025	13 days without traces of ignition; lack of oxygen in the shaft; moisture in the ignition materials	§ 261 StPO · in dubio pro reo	F1-016	no
Part 1	20.01.2025	Six assertions by the prosecutor at the hearing in the closing address individually refuted	§ 261 StPO	F1-016	no
Part 2	28.02.2025	At least three interruptions of the final statement; threat to withdraw the right to make it	§ 258 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG	F1-025	no
Part 2	28.02.2025	Threat of new criminal proceedings by the prosecutor at the hearing during the final statement	Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 6 EMRK	F1-025	no
Part 2	28.02.2025	Request to those present to work towards obtaining a confession	§ 136a StPO · Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK	F1-025	no
Part 2	28.02.2025	Intent concerning coronavirus emergency aid disputed; transfer of the business explained	§ 264 StGB · § 261 StPO	F1-025	no
Part 3	05.05.2025	Attempt to ignite found without evidence — no traces after 13 days	§ 261 StPO · § 22 StGB	F1-032	no
Part 3	05.05.2025	No expert could establish the purpose of the electronics; the judgment nevertheless determines it	§ 261 StPO · § 267 StPO	F1-032	no
Part 3	05.05.2025	Contradiction: a dummy cannot be ruled out (judgment p. 29, line 11), against a finding of activation (p. 28, line 17)	§ 261 StPO	F1-032	no
Part 3	05.05.2025	Battery discharged; no evidence of an operational power source	§ 261 StPO	F1-032	no
Part 3	05.05.2025	Absence of an actual danger; application for discontinuance under § 206a StPO	§§ 22, 23, 306a StGB	F1-032	no
Part 4	07.05.2025	Witness from the villa could not recognise the applicant despite knowing him personally (judgment p. 15, line 15)	§ 261 StPO	F1-033	no
Part 4	07.05.2025	DNA of two unknown persons in two trace samples (judgment p. 23, line 18) — not evaluated	§ 244 Abs. 2 StPO · § 160 Abs. 2 StPO	F1-033	no
Part 4	07.05.2025	No digital or physical traces at the scene despite a complete examination	§ 261 StPO	F1-033	no
Part 4	07.05.2025	Alternative perpetrator hypothesis involving two subtenants not examined	§ 244 Abs. 2 StPO	F1-033	no
Part 4	07.05.2025	Judgment p. 31, line 18: argument that burning was impossible because of the timing discounted	Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK · § 261 StPO	F1-033	no
Part 5	07.05.2025	Authorship of the graffiti established without paint traces on clothing, the vehicle or among possessions	§ 261 StPO	F1-036	no
Part 5	07.05.2025	Contradictory assumption about motive: the fire would have made the message itself illegible	§ 261 StPO	F1-036	no
Part 6	07.05.2025	Exclusive use of the computer (p. 25, line 25) and the presence of two third parties (p. 20, line 1) inferred from the same interview	§ 261 StPO · § 267 StPO	F1-036	no
Part 6	07.05.2025	Metaphorical expression in a social media post interpreted as intent to commit the act	Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · § 261 StPO	F1-036	no
Part 6	07.05.2025	Criminal complaints filed during the trial not mentioned in the judgment	§ 152 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG	F1-036	no
Part 6	07.05.2025	Application to forward supplement Part 2 to the court hearing the Revision	§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO	F1-036	no
Part 7	07.05.2025	Political activity assessed as insignificant — contrary to two OSCE references	§ 261 StPO	F1-036	no
Part 7	07.05.2025	Surveillance in Warsaw and arson against the vehicle not investigated	§ 160 Abs. 2 StPO	F1-036	no
Coronavirus	07.05.2025	Judgment p. 4, line 14 (“operating business”), against p. 6, line 10 (“no turnover since 2018”)	§ 337 StPO · § 261 StPO	F1-036	no
Coronavirus	07.05.2025	Payment of the AOK claim before the application was filed omitted from the judgment	§ 261 StPO	F1-036	no

The order of 07.05.2025 contains none of these points — neither accepting nor rejecting them, neither identifying nor summarising them. Part 8 of 20.05.2025 is not listed here because the Division itself stated that it had no longer been able to take it into account (Chronology No. 37).

Alternative hypothesis Not each of the 28 points has to be decided individually if the Division ultimately considers them insufficient to succeed — collective treatment is permissible practice.

What is missing Reasons why none of the 28 points succeeded; even a collective decision requires essential supporting considerations.

3 Point 3: everything else, without a single case reference

“The defendant’s numerous other submissions in this matter are either not available as a matter of law or inadmissible for other reasons.”

The matters concerned included the application for an interim order of 03.02.2025, the letters to the Federal Court of Justice of 13.02. and 17.02.2025, the application of 15.03.2025, the Anhörungsrüge (complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard) concerning inaction of 26.03.2025, and the application of 07.04.2025 for provisional acceptance of Parts 5 to 7.

§ 34 StPO (duty to give reasons for appealable decisions) · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: no distinction is made as to which submission fails for which reason. A person who is not told what was decided on which application cannot make arguments against it.

Alternative hypothesis A collective formulation such as “everything else” may reflect concise drafting if the Division actually examined the matters concerned, even without listing them individually.

What is missing Case references or dates demonstrating that the listed applications were actually examined.

4 The presiding judge’s order of the same day

A second order was issued on 07.05.2025, signed solely by the presiding judge: refusal to discharge my court-appointed defence counsel and refusal of all applications for access to the files. The reasons state that I had not been prevented from submitting supplements of my own —

“… as can be seen from the numerous submissions, including those recorded at the court registry.”

Before that date, the same registry had demonstrably refused to record submissions: on 15.01.2025, on 24.02.2025, on 14.03.2025 and on 18.03.2025. The decision also relied on a submission by my defence lawyer of 07.01.2025 that was not made available to me; access to the files was refused under § 147 Abs. 4 StPO because I had legal representation — by the same lawyer whose discharge is refused in the same order.

§ 143a Abs. 2 StPO · § 147 Abs. 4 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Significance: what did reach the record did so despite this practice and, in some cases, only after a hunger strike. Chronology No. 35

Alternative hypothesis A presiding judge may decide purely organisational applications such as discharge of counsel and access to files alone if procedural law provides for it — this does not circumvent the Division.

What is missing An explanation of why I supposedly had no opportunity before that date to submit supplements of my own, although I dispute this.

5 A decision on a judgment without a list of provisions

The judgment of 22.07.2024 did not contain the list of applied provisions under § 260 Abs. 5 StPO. It was added only on 30.07.2025 — 373 days after the judgment and 84 days after the decision on the Revision.

§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO · § 267 StPO

Significance: the review described in point 2 of the order was conducted on a judgment whose list of provisions did not exist at that time. Chronology No. 49

Alternative hypothesis The Division could assume that a formality to be remedied later did not affect the Revision decision if the applied provisions were apparent from the reasons for the judgment.

What is missing A finding by the Division itself on the absence of the list — it is not mentioned in the order even though it was already missing when the decision was made.

· Deception 8

6 Addendum of 02.09.2026: the list of provisions was not merely missing from the proper place — it was missing altogether

Until now, this page recorded that on 07.05.2025 the Division decided on a version of the judgment that lacked the list of applied criminal provisions mandatory under § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO. A complete review of the judgment text now reveals more:

The list appears nowhere in the judgment. Not after the operative part on original page 2, where the text moves directly from the costs decision to the word “Reasons” — nor at the end on original page 38, where the section on costs is immediately followed by the judges’ names and the certification.

The objection that the list appeared elsewhere therefore does not succeed.

§ 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO · § 349 Abs. 2 StPO

Significance: the Division decided on a version entirely lacking a mandatory component. Only on 30.07.2025 — 373 days after pronouncement and after the judgment had become final — was the list inserted by order. Judgment, pages 2 and 38 · Annex 65_F2

Alternative hypothesis Under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO, the Division was not obliged to examine compliance with § 260 Abs. 5 StPO of its own motion if this point had not been expressly raised.

What is missing Whether the list of provisions was actually missing from the version in the files before the Division, or whether it had a different version — this is not documented.

7 The correction order and its reasons

The order of 30.07.2025 places exactly one sentence under the heading “Reasons”: “There is an obvious clerical error.” It does not explain why the absence of a mandatory component of a judgment should be a clerical error, when it was noticed, or why the amendment was still possible after this Division’s decision on the Revision.

Furthermore, the judgment was delivered by Judges Groß, Loewenthal and Frank; the supplementary order was made by Groß, Loewenthal and Schlimm. The Chamber that supplemented the judgment had a different composition from the one that delivered it.

§ 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO · § 268 StPO

Significance: since 31.08.2026, this question has been pending before the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag as petition E-208090 — expressly as a question to the legislature, not as a challenge to this Division’s decision. Annex 196_F2

Alternative hypothesis A correction order need not document every procedural step if the outcome is permissible within the framework of § 268 StPO.

What is missing The date and circumstances of discovery of the “clerical error”, and an explanation of why the correction took 373 days if it concerned only an oversight.

Sources: order of the 5th Criminal Division of 07.05.2025 (5 StR 72/25) · presiding judge’s order of 07.05.2025 · order of 19.06.2025 on the complaints alleging violations of the right to be heard · supplements to the grounds of the Revision, Parts 1–8 and coronavirus aid, records of the Tiergarten Local Court registry · Berlin Regional Court correction order of 30.07.2025. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment, distinguishing between documented episodes and the statements of the person concerned.