Filing a criminal complaint against JVA Heidering concerning Rechtsbeugung (perversion of justice), coercion and obstruction of criminal prosecution in public office

Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To the Staatsanwaltschaft Potsdam, Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 32, 14469 Potsdam. Date: 20.06.2025.

Subject: Criminal complaint against employees of JVA Heidering on suspicion of Rechtsbeugung (perversion of justice, § 339 StGB), coercion (§ 240 StGB) and obstruction of criminal prosecution in public office (§ 258a StGB) — unlawful prevention of the recording by the court of a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard.

Dear Sir or Madam, in my capacity as a prisoner seeking legal protection, I hereby file a criminal complaint against the decision-makers at Heidering correctional facility whose names are not yet known, in particular the facility management and the responsible group supervisor Ms Dahms, concerning serious violations of the principles of the rule of law. There is a strong suspicion of Rechtsbeugung (§ 339 StGB), coercion (§ 240 StGB), obstruction of criminal prosecution in public office (§ 258a StGB) and possibly further offences in public office (e.g. § 344 StGB).

I. Facts

On 10.06.2025 I was transferred from JVA Moabit to JVA Heidering without prior notice. On the same day I made an oral application to group supervisor Ms Dahms to be brought immediately before the court registry officer so that I could have a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard pursuant to § 356a StPO recorded within the time limit. On 11.06.2025 I handed over a written application with identical content. On 13.06.2025 Ms Dahms orally informed me that my appearance had been refused. The reason given was that the deadline for lodging the complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard had “expired”. Despite repeated requests, I was not given a written direction. At the same time, all writing materials were unlawfully denied to me.

II. Legal assessment

1. Rechtsbeugung (§ 339 StGB): According to the established case law of the Bundesgerichtshof, Rechtsbeugung occurs when a public official exercising a sovereign function knowingly and seriously violates the law to the benefit or detriment of a party (see BGHSt 32, 357; BGHSt 46, 321; BGH NStZ 2016, 98). Examination of the admissibility of a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard is solely the responsibility of the competent court — here the Bundesgerichtshof. Administrative employees of a correctional facility have no subject-matter competence to legally assess a question concerning a procedural deadline.

2. Coercion (§ 240 StGB): According to BGHSt 29, 281, omission of an official act may also be regarded as coercion in public office if that act is unlawfully omitted in order to force the affected person to behave in a particular way. The double measure (refusal to take an official record and refusal of writing materials) constitutes aggravated coercion within the meaning of § 240 Abs. 2 StGB.

3. Obstruction of criminal prosecution in public office (§ 258a StGB): The complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard was part of ongoing proceedings before the BGH. The deliberate decision not to bring me before the registry officer evidently aimed to prevent this remedy from being pursued (see BGH NStZ-RR 2018, 144).

III. Evidence

Written application of 11.06.2025; oral refusal of 13.06.2025 by Ms Dahms; declaration in lieu of oath of 19.06.2025 (Anlage 43_F2); declaration in lieu of oath of 20.06.2025 (Anlage 44_F2); chronology of the blocking of acts relevant to the proceedings.

IV. Requests

1. Immediate initiation of an investigation against the specified decision-makers. 2. Identification of the specific persons responsible for the oral refusal of 13.06.2025. 3. Preservation of all official instructions, notes and internal correspondence. 4. Examination of Ms Dahms as a witness. 5. Notification to me of the case number and the progress of the investigation.

Concluding remark: The conduct of JVA Heidering constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The justice system must not become a tool for suppressing legal remedies.

Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash