Judge Offenloch | Responsible parties

Member of the 3rd Chamber of the Second Senate which, together with Judges Langenfeld and Fetzer, unanimously refused to accept my constitutional complaint for decision on 01.09.2025. This page concerns the decision, not the person.

1 Refusal to accept the complaint without reasons on the merits

The order of 01.09.2025 (file reference 2 BvR 964/25) was made unanimously under § 93b in conjunction with § 93a BVerfGG. It does not examine the procedural facts I raised — in particular, the list of provisions applied that was inserted only after the judgment became final. In parallel, order 2 BvR 1069/25 was issued concerning court-appointed defence counsel.

§ 93a, § 93b, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG · § 260 Abs. 5 StPO

Significance: Refusing to accept a complaint without giving reasons is permitted by law. For the person concerned, it means that the substantive grounds of complaint have never been examined on their merits in any proceedings. Chronology F1-052

Alternative hypothesis Orders refusing to accept a complaint under § 93b BVerfGG are exempt by law from the obligation to give reasons on the merits — the Chamber does not have to address every argument.

What is missing Any mention of the subsequently inserted list of provisions — whether as having been examined or as having been dismissed as irrelevant to the decision.

2 The required document could not be submitted without access to the file

The reason given is a failure to substantiate my case: I should have submitted the application of the Generalbundesanwalt (Federal Prosecutor General) under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO, or set out its substance and addressed its decisive grounds. That very document was in the file to which I was denied access — on 12.12.2024 on the ground that the files were not at the court, and on 16.01.2025 on the ground that, as a defendant represented by counsel, I had no independent right of access.

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG · § 147 Abs. 4 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Significance: In my assessment, the requirement presupposes precisely what I had previously been denied. This closes the circle: the refusal in the ordinary court proceedings becomes an obstacle to admissibility in the constitutional proceedings. Chronology No. 17 · Groß dossier, point 8

Alternative hypothesis The requirements for substantiation established in the Chambers’ case law apply equally to all complainants, regardless of the circumstances of the individual case.

What is missing An examination of the fact that the previously denied access to the file made it difficult in practice to submit the required document.

3 The end of the domestic avenue of legal redress

These two orders brought the domestic avenue of legal redress for my Revision (appeal on points of law) to an end. They also mark the starting point for calculating the time limit for proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. The orders reached me in an opened envelope.

Art. 35 Abs. 1 EMRK · § 29 Abs. 2 StVollzG · Art. 10 GG

Significance: Mail from the Federal Constitutional Court is not subject to inspection by the prison. Chronology No. 113

4 Procedural status in 09/2026: one unanswered and one new constitutional complaint

My constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 initially received neither an acknowledgment of receipt nor a file reference for 48 days; I therefore submitted a status inquiry on 27.08.2026. Correction of 26.09.2026: By letter dated 01.09.2026 (Annex 207_F2), received by me on 07.09.2026, the Federal Constitutional Court acknowledged receipt and communicated file reference 2 BvR 1314/26 (see Chronology No. 199). The decision on the merits itself remains outstanding.

On 02.09.2026 at 17:16 I submitted a further constitutional complaint against the order of the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) of 18.08.2026 and the order of Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) of 24.06.2026. It alleges violations of Art. 103 Abs. 1, Art. 19 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 and Art. 2 Abs. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG.

I make no allegation against the members of this Chamber and do not know which judicial panel will decide the new complaint. This page documents the procedural status.

Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 4a GG · §§ 90 ff. BVerfGG · § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG

Supporting documents: Annex 197_F2 · Proof of transmission · Dossier

Alternative hypothesis An opened envelope on receipt of mail at a prison is part of routine visual inspection, not a targeted opening by the court.

What is missing An inspection note from the prison documenting the visual inspection of this item of mail.

Sources: Order 2 BvR 964/25 of 01.09.2025 · Parallel order 2 BvR 1069/25 · Chronology F1-052, Case 2, No. 113. Added on 02.09.2026: Annexes 197_F2, 199_F2. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.