This page organises the events concerning the presiding judge in the original proceedings into six sections: findings in the judgment · access to justice · defence and access to files · the instructions on remedies accompanying Annex 29_F3 · applications left undecided · failure to forward matters and time limits. Each point follows the structure: Fact – evidence – legal provision – significance. The assessments are my own and do not replace a judicial finding; the presumption of innocence applies without restriction.
Since 08.09.2026, each point has contained two additional fields: the alternative hypothesis — the most benign plausible explanation of the event — and an indication of what is missing. They appear here because an account that permits only one reading cannot be tested. The same framework in eight quotations →
I. Findings in the judgment of 22.07.2024
1A judgment without a list of legal provisions — added after 373 days
The judgment of 22.07.2024 did not contain the list of provisions applied required by § 260 Abs. 5 StPO. It was added on 30.07.2025, described as the correction of a clerical error — 373 days after pronouncement, 84 days after the decision on the appeal on points of law (Revision), and after the judgment had become final. The order contained no instructions on remedies.
§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO · § 267 StPO · § 35a StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG
Significance: the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) ruled on a judgment whose list of legal provisions was absent at the time of its decision. In my assessment, this cannot be captured by the concept of a clerical error.
Chronology no. 49 ·
Access to court, no. 106Alternative hypothesisA 38-page judgment document is produced under time pressure; the absence of a formal element may be overlooked and corrected under § 267 StPO without any change to the substance.
What is missingReasons going beyond a single sentence. It is not apparent how the omission remained unnoticed for 373 days and throughout an appeal on points of law; nor does the order contain instructions on remedies.
2The act is worded as established
The judgment consistently describes the placement of the device as my own act: “He activated the time fuse and placed the incendiary device…” (p. 14, line 31); “However, in view of the other results of the taking of evidence, the chamber had no doubts that this switch had been operated by the defendant…” (p. 28, line 17). At the same time, the same judgment records that the expert could “not reliably assess whether the USBV was a dummy or not” (p. 29, line 11), and that the witness from the building did not recognise the person he had observed as me (p. 15, line 15) — although he knew me personally.
§ 261 StPO · § 267 StPO · Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK
Significance: according to my account, attributing the act to me is supported by neither testimony nor physical evidence. The full comparison appears in the
annotated judgment.
Alternative hypothesisA judgment words its findings as established, even when they rest on an overall assessment of circumstantial evidence; this is standard judgment language and not a contradiction.
What is missingThe bridge between the two. The judgment treats the act as certain, but elsewhere records that the expert could not rule out a dummy and that the witness did not recognise the person. How the chamber reached certainty from that point is not explained.
3Interruptions of the final statement on 22.07.2024
According to my account, I was interrupted at least three times during my final statement: when I spoke about my political activity, when I raised the seizure of a banner in September 2021, and when I made submissions on Corona-Soforthilfe (coronavirus emergency aid). At the first interruption, I was told, in substance, that my political activity was irrelevant; the possibility of denying me the opportunity to deliver my final statement was raised. None of these submissions appears in the written judgment.
§ 258 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG · BGH, judgment of 27.02.2004 – 2 StR 146/03
Significance: this ground of challenge is the subject of Parts 1 and 2 of the supplements to the grounds of the Revision, which, according to the 5th Criminal Panel’s own statement, were before it. Evidentiary level: attested in a declaration in lieu of oath on 28.08.2026; documented in writing in the case file since 20.01.2025 through a supplement to the grounds of the Revision taken on the record.
Part 1 ·
Part 2 ·
index of grounds of challenge ·
Annex 192_F2Alternative hypothesisThe presiding judge directs the hearing under § 238 StPO and may cut short submissions considered unrelated to the proceedings. A final statement may be guided.
What is missingThe record. Whether interruptions occurred, and how often, is not apparent from the trial record; my account is attested in a declaration in lieu of oath, and nothing further is available on this point.
II. Access to justice
4Contact with the religious community — 140 days
There were 140 days between my first application on 05.08.2024 and the first visit by a rabbi on 23.12.2024. During that time: oral refusals without a written decision, a prohibition on handing over the written decision, the return of a letter to the community with a requirement to send it unsealed to the prosecuting authority for inspection, and finally authorisation on the day before the announced start of the hunger strike. The application for a judicial decision was decided after 120 days.
Art. 4 GG · § 53 StVollzG · § 119 StPO
Significance: the legal position did not change during these 140 days — it was the same from the outset. Only the pressure changed.
Full Jewish Community chapterAlternative hypothesisDetention restrictions under § 119 StPO, staff shortages and changes in responsibility between the court and the prison may unintentionally delay a matter for months.
What is missingA written decision. No written decision was issued in the first months; without one, no time limit for a remedy runs, nor is there anything for a court to review.
5The order of 08.01.2025: disposed of, although not resolved
The application for a judicial decision was decided on the ground that the matter had become moot upon the lifting of the detention restrictions under § 119 StPO. However, the subject of the application was contact with the religious community, not § 119 StPO. Consequently, no court at any level has ever ruled on the merits of the actual question.
§ 33a StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 4 GG
Significance: one matter is declared disposed of by deciding a different matter.
Chronology F3-033Alternative hypothesisWhere several applications from the same person are pending in parallel, one matter may be assigned to another in the administrative workflow and thereby inadvertently treated as disposed of.
What is missingA decision on the merits. To this day, no court at any level has decided the substance of contact with the religious community.
6The complaint of inaction is answered by the very person whose inaction is challenged
My complaint of inaction under § 198 GVG dated 13.01.2025 was not followed by an order, but by a letter without a prescribed form stating that there could be no question of inaction. Under § 306 Abs. 2 StPO, the complaint should have been forwarded to the court hearing complaints if the originating court did not remedy it.
§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO · § 198 GVG · Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG
Significance: the judge whose inaction was challenged answered the complaint about himself — without a prescribed form, and therefore without the possibility of challenge.
Chronology F3-035Alternative hypothesisA reply without a prescribed form may have been intended as an indication that the matter had been remedied; § 198 GVG is primarily directed at compensation, not at a decision on a complaint.
What is missingForwarding of the complaint. If the originating court does not remedy a complaint, § 306 Abs. 2 StPO requires it to be forwarded to the court hearing complaints. I am not aware of any such referral.
III. Defence and access to files
7Discharge of two of the three court-appointed defence lawyers
On 12.09.2024, two of my three court-appointed defence lawyers were discharged. From September 2024, I could reach the remaining lawyer neither in writing nor by telephone; I received a copy of the grounds of the Revision he had filed only on 06.12.2024, eight days after the deadline for filing the grounds. I record the temporal connection with a preceding visit by a lawyer; I do not claim a causal connection.
§ 140 StPO · § 143a StPO · Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. c EMRK
Significance: a defence that exists formally but does not take place in practice also closes one’s own route to court — because, under § 147 StPO, the right of access to the files belongs to defence counsel.
Chronology no. 1 ·
No. 4Alternative hypothesisThe discharge of court-appointed defence lawyers generally has substantive reasons — a breakdown of trust, a conflict of interest, cost considerations — and a lawyer’s availability is not within the court’s control.
What is missingThe temporal connection remains an observation. I do not claim a causal connection; what is missing is the reasoning for the discharge in a form accessible to me.
8Two mutually exclusive reasons for the same refusal
On 12.12.2024, access to the files was refused on the ground that the files were no longer at the court. On 16.01.2025, it was refused because, as a defendant represented by counsel, I had no independent right of access to the files. Both reasons concerned the same application.
§ 147 Abs. 4 StPO · § 33a StPO · Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. b EMRK
Significance: without access to the files, I could not substantiate procedural grounds of challenge and later could not comply with the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s (Federal Constitutional Court’s) requirement to submit the written application of the Generalbundesanwalt (Federal Public Prosecutor General).
Chronology no. 17Alternative hypothesisTwo decisions by different case handlers at different times may give different reasons without either being incorrect — the situation regarding the files may have changed between 12.12.2024 and 16.01.2025.
What is missingA resolution. If the first reason was correct, the second was unnecessary; if the second was correct, the first was incorrect. Which applies has never been clarified.
IV. The instructions on remedies accompanying Annex 29_F3
One sheet with two different sets of instructions
The reply concerning Annex 29_F3 is accompanied by instructions on remedies whose text, upon examination of the document, consists of two blocks that do not belong together. The text correctly begins with instructions on a complaint under § 304 StPO, breaks off mid-sentence and moves into standard form text on electronic filing and on Berufung (appeal), Revision (appeal on points of law), Nebenklage (participation as a private accessory prosecutor) and Anschlusserklärung (declaration of joinder) — remedies that are not admissible against an order. No time limit is stated anywhere.
I therefore received instructions that, in this combination, correspond to no stage of the proceedings. I cannot prove how the sheet came about; I consider it possible that two templates were copied on top of each other. That is my assessment. What is evidenced is only what appears on the sheet itself.
§ 35a StPO (duty to provide instructions on remedies) · § 44 Satz 2 StPO (omitted or incorrect instructions) · § 304 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: incorrect instructions act like a trap. Whoever follows them lodges a remedy that does not exist; whoever does not follow them does not know the actual deadline. I request a technical examination of the original.
“Deception” series ·
Chronology F3-033Alternative hypothesisForms are assembled from components; a sheet may inadvertently contain two versions of instructions without any intention behind it.
What is missingA correction. I have not received a correction of the inaccurate instructions.
V. Applications without decisions
9Eighteen matters on which no decision on the merits was issued
The following annexes document applications, reminders and legal remedies on which, according to my list, no decision on the merits was issued — in some cases, not even an acknowledgement of receipt.
From Case 2: Annexes 3_F2, 8_F2, 10_F2, 11_F2, 13_F2, 15_F2, 16_F2, 20_F2, 33_F2, 76_F2, 77_F2.
From Case 3: Annexes 2_F3, 18_F3, 23_F3, 27_F3, 29_F3, 31_F3, 32_F3.
§ 37 StPO · § 306 Abs. 2 StPO · § 198 GVG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: a remedy exists against a refusal. There is none against the absence of a decision, because nothing exists that could be challenged. This second form of denial is documented throughout the chronology.
Alternative hypothesisWhere the same person makes a very large number of submissions, matters are combined, decided together or treated as superseded by later decisions.
What is missingA mapping of the decisions to the applications. For none of the matters listed do I have a decision showing which application was decided and on what grounds.
VI. Failure to forward matters, time limits and the episode involving the court registry
10Annexes 14_F2 and 15_F2 — addressed to the BGH and Kammergericht, answered by the Landgericht
On 13.02.2025, I had two applications recorded by the recording officer of the court registry, expressly addressed to the Bundesgerichtshof and the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court); the addressees are identified in the record. Under the intended administrative procedure, they should have reached those courts through the internal mail distribution system. The Landgericht replied — the presiding judge in the original proceedings. The registry of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court) and the presiding judge are located on the same premises in Turmstraße.
On 20.02.2025, because there had been no response, I had a status enquiry to both courts recorded (Annex 20_F2).
§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO · § 21 GVG · Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG (judge designated by law)
Significance: I record that documents not addressed to him entered the presiding judge’s workflow. I have no explanation for this; I request clarification through access to the files. This is a documented event whose explanation remains open — not a proven removal of documents from the files.
Chronology no. 29Alternative hypothesisWithin the same premises, mail may be misdirected in the administrative workflow; a court presented with a matter sometimes replies itself instead of forwarding it.
What is missingProof of forwarding. To this day, there is no evidence that the two applications ever reached the Bundesgerichtshof and the Kammergericht.
11Failure to forward complaints to the court hearing them
§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO requires the originating court to forward a complaint to the court hearing complaints within three days if it does not remedy it itself. My complaints were not forwarded; on 08.10.2025, I had to apply directly to the Kammergericht. On 31.10.2025, that court stated that this was a “should” provision (Sollvorschrift) without direct procedural consequences.
§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG
Significance: if failure to forward a complaint has no consequences, the originating court can effectively suspend the statutory route through the courts. This is the subject of my constitutional complaint of 27.11.2025.
Chronology no. 119 ·
No. 124 ·
No. 128Alternative hypothesisThe Kammergericht itself decided that § 306 Abs. 2 StPO was a “should” provision (Sollvorschrift) without direct procedural consequences. On that basis, there is no breach of the law.
What is missingThe time limit. Even characterisation as a “should” provision (Sollvorschrift) does not answer why no referral took place for months and why matters moved only after a direct application to the court hearing complaints.
12Refusal to forward Supplement Part 2
In Supplement Part 6 of 07.05.2025, I expressly requested a court order to forward Supplement Part 2 to the court hearing the Revision, because this had not previously been done. The application is reproduced verbatim on the website.
§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO · § 347 Abs. 1 StPO
Significance: for remedies subject to filing deadlines, delayed forwarding has the same result as refusal.
Supplement Part 6 verbatimAlternative hypothesisThe application may have been lost among the volume of supplements; with seven parts, an unintentional gap in assigning them is conceivable.
What is missingA decision on the application. It has neither been rejected nor decided.
VII. From the final statement to possible institutional self-defence
13The interruption of the final statement
In his final statement before Landgericht Berlin I, Dmitry Bagrash stated, according to his own account, that his first destination after release would be the Bundestag (German federal parliament): there, he intended to initiate an independent parliamentary inquiry into the failure of Berlin’s judiciary and security authorities in dealing with Russian intelligence operations — based on the evidence from his own proceedings. According to his own account, he was interrupted by Judge Groß during that final statement; essential statements concerning his innocence were subsequently neither mentioned in the judgment nor discernibly taken into account.
Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (right to be heard) · § 258 Abs. 3 StPO (final statement)
Significance: the interruption itself is an account given by the person concerned, not an officially established fact — it does not appear in those terms in the hearing record, which has not yet been made available to me. What is officially documented is that the announced inquiry is directed, among other things, at the same institution to which Groß belongs as a presiding judge.
Chronology F1-016 ·
F2-153Alternative hypothesisA final statement that departs from the subject of the proceedings may be limited; the judgment need not reproduce every submission by the defendant.
What is missingThe record. The content of the final statement is not documented; it entered the case file only on 20.01.2025 through a record made by a Rechtspflegerin (judicial officer).
14What followed in time
The events documented on this page (points 1–12) — refusal of access to files, incorrect instructions on remedies, undecided applications, failure to forward complaints to the reviewing court, documents addressed to others entering one’s own workflow — all took place after the pronouncement of the judgment on 22.07.2024, during which the final statement was delivered. A mere temporal sequence does not prove a connection. But it is the starting point for the question this page raises openly and by name.
Significance: I do not claim that Groß acted to protect himself. I observe that a pattern of procedural errors benefits the same participant whose institution is the subject of a publicly announced inquiry — and that this possibility has not yet been ruled out because nobody has examined it independently.
Alternative hypothesisProximity in time is not a connection. Each event has its own independent explanation, and their accumulation may result from the unusually large number of submissions.
What is missingThat is precisely the point: evidence of a connection is missing, and I do not claim that there is any. I record the sequence.
15The open question
Two explanations stand side by side, neither proven: either this is a chain of independent errors, each explicable on its own — or the recurring pattern has a common denominator. An independent review of Judge Groß’s conduct of these proceedings would answer that question. To my knowledge, no such review has yet taken place.
Who can clarify it: Kammergericht (administrative supervision) · Petitionsausschuss des Abgeordnetenhauses von Berlin (Petitions Committee of the Berlin House of Representatives), § 5 Abs. 1 PetG Bln · the parliamentary inquiry itself that Bagrash announced, if it comes about.
Alternative hypothesisThe first of the two explanations — a chain of independent errors — is the more likely one as long as nothing else has been established.
What is missingAn independent review. To my knowledge, none has taken place; without it, the question remains open.
16The different composition of the court for the judgment and the correction order
On page 38, the judgment of 22.07.2024 bears the names Groß · Loewenthal · Frank. The order of 30.07.2025, which subsequently inserted the missing list of provisions applied, names the deciding chamber as Groß · Loewenthal · Schlimm.
The chamber that subsequently supplemented the judgment therefore had a different composition from the one that delivered it. The reasoning in the order consists of a single sentence: there was an obvious clerical error.
§ 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO · § 268 StPO · Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG
Significance: both lists of names appear in the original documents and can be read without interpretation. I do not assess whether legal consequences arise from this.
Judgment, page 38 · Annex 65_F2
Alternative hypothesisA correction order under § 267 StPO is issued by the composition competent at the time of correction; personnel changes in a chamber after a year are normal.
What is missingA determination of what was intended. The order consists of one sentence. How a differently composed chamber determines what the trial chamber intended is not explained.
17Witness Prof. Dr. Heinemann-Grüder — twice from Bonn, not questioned on the substance
The witness travelled specifically to attend the trial twice. At the first questioning, he demonstrated using his mobile phone in the courtroom that we had communicated practically every other day from March to May 2022. Immediately afterwards, Oberstaatsanwalt Wachs (Senior Public Prosecutor) intervened; from then on, the questions concerned only the witness’s knowledge of the proceedings. At the second hearing, he spent no more than about five minutes in the courtroom.
He was not questioned on any of the matters for which he had been summoned — neither the coordination of my public activities, nor their content, nor their legality.
After the courtroom door had closed behind the witness, the presiding judge said to Oberstaatsanwalt Wachs, in substance: “Mr Prosecutor, what do we actually need this university professor for?”
§ 244 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG
Evidentiary level: attested in a declaration in lieu of oath on 30.08.2026, subject to the criminal penalty under § 156 StGB; the hearing record is not accessible to me.
Annex 193_F2, paragraphs 8 to 21 ·
ContextAlternative hypothesisA court determines the scope of the taking of evidence itself; a witness may become unnecessary if the chamber considers the matter to be proved already clarified or irrelevant.
What is missingThe order. No decision can be found explaining why the witness was not questioned on the matters for which he had been summoned.
18Procedural status: criminal complaint of 02.09.2026
On 02.09.2026, I filed a criminal complaint with Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) against Presiding Judge Groß and Oberstaatsanwalt Wachs. At the same time, I pointed out that the Berlin authority is itself a party to the proceedings and suggested referring the matter to a Generalstaatsanwaltschaft outside Berlin.
I expressly do not assess whether the high threshold under § 339 StGB has been reached. That is for a prosecuting authority alone to examine. As long as no decision has been reached, the presumption of innocence applies.
§ 158 StPO · § 339 StGB
Both declarations in lieu of oath were enclosed, along with the judgment extract comprising pages 2, 29–31 and 38.
Alternative hypothesisReceipt of a criminal complaint says nothing about its merit. The vast majority of complaints under § 339 StGB are discontinued because the provision deliberately sets high thresholds.
What is missingA decision. The complaint has not been decided; no case reference is available to this day. The presumption of innocence applies without restriction.
19The motive in the judgment — “attention not previously received” — and two statements at the OSCE
The judgment of 22.07.2024 finds that I wanted to obtain “attention not previously received” by means other than peaceful protest. Earlier in the same judgment, public demonstrations, a month-long vigil at the Brandenburg Gate, the association UnKremlin e. V. and Russian television coverage of me are described.
The Russian Federation had already named UnKremlin e. V. twice before the OSCE: on 23.09.2021 (PC.DEL/1483/21), under an agenda item introduced by Germany, and on 08.04.2022 (PC.DEL/526/22) — 16 days before the period of the offence assumed in the judgment. Both references formed part of Part 7 of my supplement to the grounds of the Revision.
§ 261 StPO (assessment of evidence) · § 267 Abs. 1 StPO (findings on the circumstances determining sentencing)
Significance: the wording of the judgment presupposes a motive that, according to the judgment itself, has already been refuted — its own findings show that attention had long been present on both sides. Discussed in detail in the
annotated version of the judgment (supplement of 16.08.2026) and under
Statements at the OSCE. Evidence of what was publicly known before the offence:
Overview.
Alternative hypothesisBy “attention”, the chamber may have meant not the Russian state’s reaction, but a particular kind of personal prominence or response in German media that would have to be distinguished from the documented political work.
What is missingAn engagement in the judgment with its own earlier findings on public visibility — and with the two statements at the OSCE, which are not mentioned in the judgment although they formed part of the submitted Revision documents.
Sources: Annexes 3_F2, 8_F2, 10_F2, 11_F2, 13_F2, 14_F2, 15_F2, 16_F2, 20_F2, 33_F2, 68_F2, 69_F2, 76_F2, 77_F2 · Annexes 2_F3, 18_F3, 23_F3, 25_F3, 27_F3, 29_F3, 31_F3, 32_F3 · judgment of Landgericht Berlin I dated 22.07.2024 · correction order of 30.07.2025 (Annex 65_F2) · Annexes 192_F2, 193_F2 · supplements to the grounds of the Revision, Parts 1–8 · order of the Kammergericht dated 31.10.2025 · Chronology F1-016, F2-153. This page reproduces Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented events and statements by the person concerned.