Letter from the Senate Department for Justice (of 05.05.2025)
On 14.05.2025 at 12:25 I received a letter from the Senate Department for Justice dated 05.05.2025. As in several previous cases, the letter did not reach me in its original envelope. Observation: Envelope changes of this kind recur in my mail. Explanatory hypothesis: This supports the view that the mail was opened before being handed over. Evidentiary gap: From the changed envelope alone, I cannot establish whether the content was read, by whom, or whether this constitutes the criminal offence under § 202 StGB; that would be a criminal-law assessment I am not entitled to make.
The content of the letter served as an acknowledgement of receipt of all letters and emails sent to the Senate Department for Justice.
All responses from the Senate Department for Justice are contained in Annex 56_F2.
Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection), Salzburger Str. 21–25, 10825 Berlin. Collection of seven response letters from different case officers (Ms Graul, Mr Heinzmann, Mr Baller) to Dmitry Bagrash, each concerning submissions made between March and June 2025.
Note on presentation: the material consists of several separate administrative letters stored as a single compiled file. The essential content follows in chronological order, without recurring footers (bank details, directions, data protection notices):
3 April 2025 (case officer: Ms Graul): Acknowledges receipt of the letter of 26.03.2025. Insofar as the complaints concerned JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison), the letter was forwarded to JVA Moabit for examination, as the prison management had not yet dealt conclusively with the matter. Complaints about courts/prosecuting authorities were forwarded to the competent internal offices.
15 April 2025 (case officer: Mr Heinzmann): States that the letter of 26.03.2025 was forwarded to the President of Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I; concerning the complaint about Groß, Presiding Judge at the Landgericht (VRiLG)) and to the President of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court; concerning the complaint about the registry officer), as they are responsible for direct administrative supervision (Dienstaufsicht). Asks that their respective responses be awaited.
5 May 2025 (case officer: Ms Graul): Acknowledges receipt of the emails of 9 and 24.04.2025 and the letter of 24.04.2025. Explains the principle of Fachaufsicht (substantive administrative supervision): the Senate Department checks only whether the final outcome of a JVA decision-making process is defensible on its merits; it does not intervene in the facility’s ongoing decision-making processes. Until JVA Moabit has adopted a final position, submissions are returned there as the competent body.
15 May 2025 (case officer: Mr Baller): States that the submissions of 26.03., 9 and 24.04.2025 were forwarded to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office) as the competent body, whose decision should be awaited.
16 May 2025 (case officer: Ms Graul): Acknowledges receipt of the submission of 24.04.2025 to Senator Dr. Badenberg and of the email of 05.05.2025. Repeats that complaints about JVA Moabit were forwarded there for examination, while complaints about courts/prosecuting authorities were forwarded to the competent internal offices.
27 May 2025 (case officer: Mr Baller): The submission of 26.05.2025 (email, 11:07) concerns the proceedings at the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) and was forwarded there, with a request that future correspondence be conducted directly with the authorities involved. A copy was also forwarded internally to the competent division (reference: letter to JVA Moabit of 24.05.2025).
16 June 2025 (case officer: Ms Graul): Acknowledges receipt of the submission of 05.06.2025 to Senator Dr. Badenberg. States that the JVA management has not yet dealt conclusively with the matter and again forwards the letter to JVA Moabit.
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The Senate Department’s letter reached me outside its original envelope. The sender is therefore an official body, but the delivery route cannot be traced. In proceedings concerned precisely with the integrity of the postal route, the authority itself has thus become part of the documented findings.
Source of the document
Annex 56_F2 (collected letters from the Senate Department for Justice, April–June 2025): Anlage_56_F2.pdf