Application under § 109 StVollzG (no decision on the UKB application v
Application under § 109 StVollzG (no decision on the application for access to a registry official (UKB) of 11.06.2025) sent to the Berlin Regional Court (LG Berlin), sentence-enforcement chamber; alternatively an interim order under § 114 StVollzG. (Annex 74_F2) Postal delivery on 19.09.2025 (RT 0372 0149 5DE)
Note: The original chronology entry also contained here the full text of the separate event F2-117 (declaration in lieu of oath “Deception 5” of 20.09.2025). That text is now on its own page F2-117; only the application under § 109 StVollzG (Annex 74_F2) follows here.
Dmitry Bagrash, B.-Nr. 327/25-7, JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), sentence-enforcement chambers, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. 17.09.2025.
Subject: Application under § 109 StVollzG — application for a judicial decision, including an alternative request for an interim order (einstweilige Anordnung) under § 114 StVollzG. Respondent: JVA Heidering. Subject: access to a registry official (UKB) / failure to decide on the application of 11.06.2025; oral refusal and a belated “offer” only on 11.08.2025.
Requests
1. A declaration that the failure to decide on my application of 11.06.2025 to be taken to a registry official, and the oral refusal of a written decision, were unlawful. 2. An order requiring JVA Heidering to grant me access to a registry official immediately, no later than within 3 working days of receipt of the application, and to decide on such applications in writing and within the time limit in future, with reasons and information on remedies. 3. An order for costs against the respondent.
Facts
On 10.06.2025 (orally) and 11.06.2025 (in writing) I urgently applied to JVA Heidering to be taken to a registry official, including to preserve one-week time limits (complaint concerning violation of the right to be heard — Anhörungsrüge). No written prison decision has been issued to date, despite reminders; the responsible female social worker orally promised that I would be taken, but there was no written decision. On 11.08.2025 — two months after my application — the head of the prison unit made an “exceptional” ad hoc offer to take me immediately to a registry official, without issuing a written decision. I declined the belated offer because it did not remedy the time-limit disadvantages already incurred; a written decision was refused. I publicly objected to the delays / blockades promptly (open letter, 09.09.2025).
Merits (extract)
The prison authority is obliged to decide on applications in writing and with understandable reasons. Silence lasting weeks to months and oral refusal without written form violate Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (effective legal protection) and Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (the right to be heard). Detainees must be able to submit remedies “for recording by a registry official”; delays or refusal of written form render legal protection empty. The late ad hoc offer on 11.08.2025 does not remove the unlawfulness. Obstruction / delay of access to registry officials also concerns Art. 6 EMRK (fair trial) and Art. 13 EMRK (effective remedy).
Evidence
Declaration in lieu of oath (eidesstattliche Erklärung) of 13.08.2025 (Annex 67_F2); open letter of 09.09.2025 (Annex 71_F2); witnesses: head of the prison unit (building 1), head of the prison service (building 1), social worker Ms Dahms.
Dmitry Bagrash
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
After more than three months without a decision on my application of 11.06.2025, only the route under § 109 StVollzG remained, alternatively § 114 StVollzG. In my view, the fact that whether a prisoner is taken to a registry official must become the subject of separate judicial proceedings at all is the best evidence of how far access to the law was obstructed here.
Document source
Annex 74_F2 (application under § 109 StVollzG of 17.09.2025): Anlage_74_F2.pdf
The related refusal order of the sentence-enforcement chamber of 04.11.2025 is documented under F2-125. The open letter of 09.09.2025 named here as evidence is documented under F2-112. The declaration in lieu of oath “Deception 5” (Annex 75_F2, originally attached here) is given in full on its own page F2-117.