Dr. Christoph Mauntel | Responsible parties

This page concerns the handling by the Regional Court’s Präsidium (presidium) of my complaints under administrative supervision (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerden) against the presiding judge in the original proceedings.

1Three specific facts — none of them addressed

My complaint under administrative supervision identified three verifiable events: the addition to the operative part of the judgment after it had become final, the absence of information on legal remedies in that order, and the lack of any acknowledgement of receipt of my immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) of 26./27.08.2025. The response of 26.06.2026 does not address any of these three points.

§ 26 Abs. 2 DRiG (administrative supervision of the proper performance of official duties) · § 37 StPO · § 35a StPO

Significance: judicial independence under Art. 97 GG protects the content of decisions. Whether receipt is acknowledged and information on legal remedies is enclosed is a matter of the proper performance of official duties rather than the content — and therefore precisely a matter for administrative supervision. Chronology No. 110

Alternative hypothesisA complaint under administrative supervision that is essentially directed against judicial decisions may be dealt with briefly, because the supervisory authority may not review their substance.

What is missingConsideration of the three purely factual points — the date of the addition, the missing information on legal remedies, and the absence of an acknowledgement of receipt — which are independent of any assessment of the decision on the merits.

2Circular reasoning based on the dismissed legal remedies

The reasoning refers to the fact that my legal remedies had already been dismissed by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) and the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court). Yet the complaint concerns precisely how those decisions came about: the decision on the appeal on points of law (Revision) concerned a judgment without a list of legal provisions, and the complaint was initially not submitted to Berlin Higher Regional Court.

§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO · § 260 Abs. 5 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: a decision whose manner of adoption is challenged is treated as proof of its own correctness. The same structure appears in the responses of the other supervisory authorities. Compare the Prosecutor General’s Office · Deception 8

Alternative hypothesisIt is understandable to rely on final decisions rather than reopen them in the context of administrative supervision.

What is missingAn explanation of how a legal remedy dismissed precisely because of the challenged formal defects can at the same time demonstrate that those defects were immaterial.

3What remains unanswered after the rejection

A complaint under administrative supervision that receives a general response leaves the stated facts standing — it does not dispute them or address them. I therefore bring them together here. They are the content of my complaints of 05.09.2025 and the preceding complaint under reference LGI 3132 E-4-34/2024. No finding on any of these points has been communicated to me — either that it is correct or that it is not.

The list of applied legal provisions required by § 260 Abs. 5 StPO was missing from the judgment of 22.07.2024 and was added on 30.07.2025 — after the judgment had become final and after the decision on the appeal on points of law (No. 106).
That order contained no information on legal remedies (§ 35a StPO).
Receipt of my immediate complaint of 26./27.08.2025 was not acknowledged (§ 37 StPO).
The complaint was not submitted to Berlin Higher Regional Court under § 306 Abs. 2 StPO (No. 119).
The recording of statements at the court registry was refused on 15.01., 24.02., 14.03. and 18.03.2025 — according to the staff, on instructions (Dossier Sauer/Lukas).
Two mutually exclusive reasons for refusing access to the case file on 12.12.2024 and 16.01.2025 (No. 17).
Two applications recorded at the registry and expressly addressed to the Federal Court of Justice and Berlin Higher Regional Court were answered by the Regional Court (No. 29).
A complaint concerning inaction under § 198 GVG was answered by a letter without a prescribed form from the very person whose inaction was challenged (F3-035).
The response letter relating to Annex 29_F3 enclosed information on legal remedies consisting of two unrelated blocks of text and giving no deadline (Deception 7).

§ 26 Abs. 2 DRiG · §§ 35a, 37, 306 Abs. 2 StPO · § 260 Abs. 5 StPO · § 198 GVG

Significance: the standard for administrative supervision is not whether a decision was correct — that is examined by the reviewing court — but whether official duties were properly performed. Every point above concerns precisely that. In my assessment, the reference to Art. 97 GG has not resulted in their examination, but in their exclusion from examination. Anyone who does not refute them leaves them standing.

Alternative hypothesisA general rejection is an accepted form of response under administrative supervision where the examination reveals no misconduct relevant to supervision.

What is missingA list of which of the points raised were examined at all.

4Ten months until the response — and the same response as the previous year

The complaint is dated 05.09.2025 and the response 26.06.2026 — more than ten months later, signed “On behalf of”. An earlier complaint under administrative supervision against the same presiding judge (reference LGI 3132 E-4-34/2024) had already been dealt with in the same way on 06.05.2025.

§ 198 GVG (reasonable duration of proceedings) · Art. 17 GG

Significance: a complaint under administrative supervision is not a judicial legal remedy and does not suspend any time limit. If it receives a general response after ten months, nothing remains of it as an instrument of oversight. Chronology No. 168

Alternative hypothesisLong processing times may result from a general overload of the court president’s administration and need not be directed against me personally.

What is missingAn explanation of why a second complaint against the same presiding judge resulted in an identical form of response without the new points being assessed separately.

5Two responses in July 2026 — the same pattern of reasoning twice

Within a few days, I received two responses from your court. One, dated 26.06.2026 and received on 09.07.2026, concerns my complaint under administrative supervision against the presiding judge in the original proceedings, dated 06.09.2025, together with the additions of 17. and 23.03.2026 — almost ten months later. The other, received on the same 09.07.2026, concerns my complaint of 25.06.2026 relating to sentence enforcement proceedings 589f StVK 86/26.

Both state that there are no indications of conduct relevant to administrative supervision. The reasoning refers to judicial independence and completed legal remedy proceedings — without specifically examining the individual facts I have documented.

§ 26 DRiG · Art. 17 GG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: the alleged events are not refuted. They are excluded from substantive examination under administrative supervision by reference to judicial independence. Annex 147_F2 · Annex 153_F2

Alternative hypothesisIf two complaints encounter the same principle, identical reasoning is consistent, rather than a template directed against me.

What is missingA distinction between the two sets of proceedings, which concerned allegations differing in substance.

6An official statement obtained and not disclosed

The response relating to proceedings 589f StVK 86/26 states that the specialist software application was consulted and an official statement was obtained from the competent judge of the sentence enforcement chamber. Its content was not communicated to me.

The letter thus confirms that a statement exists while not disclosing it. In particular, it leaves unanswered how the late and incomplete transmission of the documents relevant to the decision, the failure to decide the application concerning press access, and the documentation of the hearing were examined.

Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG · § 26 Abs. 2 DRiG

Significance: this is the second document in these proceedings whose existence has been officially confirmed and whose content is withheld from me — alongside the hearing record of 24.06.2026. Annex 153_F2 · Annex 194_F2

Alternative hypothesisOfficial statements are internal administrative documents that are not routinely released to the complainant.

What is missingAt least a summary of its content, so that I know what the judge commented on before the complaint was rejected.

Sources: Annexes 68_F2, 69_F2 (original complaints) · Annexes 147_F2, 153_F2 (responses) · reference LGI 3132 E-4-34/2024. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented events and statements by the person concerned.