This page concerns 15.01.2025 — the day on which recording the supplement to the grounds of my Revision (appeal on points of law) was first refused. My allegation is directed not against the individuals acting, but against the body from which the instruction originated.
1 The refusal on 15.01.2025 at 9:15
The court registry officer refused to accept the submission despite my pointing out that the time limit for supplementation under § 345 StPO had not yet expired. The reasons given were a letter without a prescribed form from the presiding judge dated 12.12.2024 stating that the time limit had already expired, and an instruction from the group head not to allow acceptance under any circumstances. The episode is set out in a declaration in lieu of oath (Annex 9_F2).
§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO · § 344 Abs. 2 StPO · § 156 StGB (declaration in lieu of oath)
Significance: In my view, recording a submission is a mandatory official duty allowing no discretion — what is checked is its form, not its content or prospects of success.
Chronology No. 15Alternative hypothesis A court registry officer may rely on the legal view of the presiding judge communicated to her and need not assess the time limit herself if instructed accordingly.
What is missing The letter without a prescribed form of 12.12.2024 itself, and written documentation of the instruction on which she relied.
2 “Direct instruction from the Regional Court”
The group head stated that she was acting under a direct instruction from the Regional Court. I was not told who issued that instruction; I suspect the reference is to the presiding judge in the original proceedings. This remains a supposition — only the statement that an instruction existed is documented.
§ 21 GVG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG
Significance: I cannot account in law for an instruction not to accept a declaration made in the proper form. The next day, the same supplement was partly recorded — so recording it was possible.
Chronology No. 18 ·
Groß dossierAlternative hypothesis A group head passing on an instruction acts within the chain of command and need not disclose its author unless asked to do so.
What is missing The name of the person who gave the instruction — without it, my supposition that it was the presiding judge remains unconfirmed, as I myself note.
3 The beginning of a series
15.01.2025 was the first of numerous episodes of this kind. Further refusals are documented on 24.02., 12.03., 14.03., 18.03. and 24.03.2025 — all before the decision on the appeal on points of law of 07.05.2025.
§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO · § 311 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: The order of the presiding judge of the 5th Criminal Senate of 07.05.2025 cites the very acts of recording submissions as evidence that I was not obstructed.
5th Criminal Senate dossier, point 4Alternative hypothesis Several refusals within a short period may stem from the same instruction, issued once and repeatedly applied — rather than six independent decisions against me.
What is missing An overview showing whether all six refusals actually stem from the same instruction of 12.12.2024 or are based on different grounds.
Sources: Annex 9_F2 (declaration in lieu of oath dated 15.01.2025) · Case 2 chronology, Nos. 15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 31. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.