Admissibility of criminal revision requiring specific grounds and reinstatement of expired filing deadlines

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's motion for a decision as unfounded, thereby upholding the lower court's ruling and resulting in a final rejection of the defendant's appeal. The dispute concerned a criminal appeal (Revision) where the Regional Court had previously dismissed the defendant's timely lodged revision as inadmissible. The defendant’s petition to the BGH was deemed groundless because the initial revision lacked the mandatory statement of grounds and specific revisionary petitions. The court held that the dismissal was correct under § 346(1) StPO and § 344(1) StPO, and further determined that the petition could not be treated as a successful application for reinstatement of the deadline under § 45(2) StPO, as the defendant failed to demonstrate having cured the default or proving that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control.