Dispatch to Berlin Regional Court (LG Berlin, StVK), case reference 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz.
Objection to “putting the proceedings aside informally” (§ 109 StVollzG; alternative application § 114 StVollzG). Reference: LG letter of 06.10.2025 (received 08.10.2025) — Annex 79_F2.
Requested: sending/obtaining the JVA statement of 26.09.2025 with annexes + access to the file; preservation of evidence of the postal chain (original envelope without a postmark, LG dispatch evidence, JVA postal records 08.–09.10.2025); preserving the opportunity to be heard + a 2-week period from receipt. Note: forwarding to the public prosecutor (StA) if applicable (§ 152 II StPO; §§ 206, 274, 353b StGB) (Annex: 80_F2)
Dmitry Bagrash, Heidering correctional facility (JVA Heidering), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — To Berlin I Regional Court, sentence-enforcement chambers, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. 21.10.2025. Case reference: 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz.
Subject: § 109 StVollzG / § 114 StVollzG — objection to the proposed “putting the proceedings aside informally”; sending/obtaining the full JVA statement of 26.09.2025 with annexes; preservation of evidence (original envelope); continuation until full knowledge of the file; forwarding to the StA if applicable.
Applications
1. No putting the proceedings aside informally; a decision is requested. I object to the “putting of the proceedings aside informally” proposed in the LG letter of 06.10.2025 (received 08.10.2025) and insist on a judicial decision on my application under § 109 StVollzG and the alternative application under § 114 StVollzG, observing Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (effective legal protection) and Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (right to be heard). The indicated fiction of consent cannot operate for the very reason that the annexes announced in your letter (the JVA statement of 26.09.2025 with annexes) did not reach me.
2. Sending/obtaining. Please send or obtain the full statement of JVA Heidering of 26.09.2025 with all annexes and provide access to the file/a copy. A proper response is impossible without these documents.
3. Preservation of evidence / clarification of facts (postal chain). a) Inspection of the original envelope (received 08.10.2025), which has no postmark/postage; b) LG registry: dispatch/processing records for the letter of 06.10.2025; c) JVA Heidering: incoming-mail/hand-over records for 08.–09.10.2025, including notes on opening/re-enveloping/removal; d) obtaining the full JVA statement with annexes from the administrative file.
4. Preserving the opportunity to be heard / time limit. Please preserve my opportunity to be heard and grant me two weeks from receipt of the complete JVA documents for a supplementary statement.
5. Urgent legal protection (§ 114 StVollzG). Insofar as my alternative application has not been decided, I maintain it.
6. Forwarding to the StA if applicable (§ 152 Abs. 2 StPO). If clarification confirms removal of the annexes outside the court, I request notification to the public prosecutor in view of possible offences (§ 206 StGB — postal/telecommunications secrecy; § 274 StGB — suppression of documents; § 353b StGB if applicable).
7. Service/form of transmission. I additionally request hand-over against acknowledgement of receipt (EB) in the JVA and transmission by fax to the facility or entry on the record by the registry official (Urkundsbeamter).
Facts
On 17.09.2025 I lodged § 109 applications (including protective/injunctive elements concerning access to the registry official and a subsequent finding of unlawfulness of earlier delays). The LG letter of 06.10.2025 (received 08.10.2025) refers to the JVA statement of 26.09.2025 and announces enclosed annexes, while proposing to “put the proceedings aside informally”, with a fiction of consent if no objection is made within two weeks. In fact, no statement/annexes were enclosed; the envelope had no postmark/postage — clarification is required regarding the transport chain (court — post — JVA).
Legal grounds (extract)
An interest in a subsequent declaratory finding under § 115 Abs. 3 StVollzG is recognised where an application originally made becomes moot after proceedings are initiated; a restrictive interpretation of the objective of legal protection violates Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG. The right to be heard (Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG) requires that parties can inform themselves of all the material in the proceedings; a proper response is impossible without knowledge of the JVA statement and its annexes. The original envelope without a postmark/postage is an object for inspection; the requested inspection and dispatch/hand-over records are necessary to distinguish a possible failure to enclose documents (court) from removal outside the court (e.g. JVA).
Evidence
1. Original envelope of the LG letter (received 08.10.2025) — production of the original. 2. LG Berlin registry: dispatch/processing records for the letter of 06.10.2025. 3. JVA Heidering: incoming-mail/hand-over records 08.–09.10.2025. 4. JVA administrative file: statement of 26.09.2025 with annexes (complete).
Yours sincerely, Dmitry Bagrash (register no. 327/25-7)
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The objection to putting the proceedings aside informally is an attempt to give an occurrence without a decision any form capable of challenge. At the same time, I requested preservation of evidence of the postal chain, particularly obtaining the original envelope. This evidentiary application has not been complied with to this day.
Document source
Annex 80_F2 (objection to putting the proceedings aside informally, applications to preserve evidence of the postal chain): Anlage_80_F2.pdf
Correction note: The Drive link previously on this page incorrectly pointed to Anlage_79_F2.pdf; it has been corrected here to the proper Anlage_80_F2 link. The referenced submission, Annex 79_F2, is documented under F2-121.