Rejection of my application by the sentence-enforcement chamber
The sentence-enforcement chamber of Berlin Regional Court (LG Berlin) rejected my application of 11.06.2025 (access to UKB — the registry official — and an interim order) in full. The reason: according to Heidering correctional facility (JVA Heidering), I had already had access to the registry official on 27.05., 28.05. and 06.06., and the time limit for the complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard had expired on 28.05.2025. There was no substantive examination of my documentation, declarations in lieu of oath or the actual refusal to enter submissions on the record. The decision cannot be challenged (§ 114 Abs. 2 S. 3 StVollzG). (Annex 83_F2)
Berlin I Regional Court, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. Case reference: 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz. Certified copy, handed over with the letter of 05.11.2025.
Order in the prison proceedings involving Dmitry Bagrash, currently at Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering, register no. 327/25/7, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — applicant — against Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering, reference MTAL 1 — AR1024 — respondent; concerning: application for an interim order, § 114 Abs. 2 StVollzG.
Berlin I Regional Court — 99th Sentence-Enforcement Chamber — ordered on 4 November 2025: 1. The application for an interim order of 13.08.2025, received on 19.09.2025, is rejected with costs. 2. The value of the subject matter in the interim-protection proceedings is set at 100,00 €.
Reasons
The applicant is serving a prison sentence at Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering, register no. 327/25/7, for aggravated arson under the Berlin Regional Court judgment of 22.07.2024. The end of the sentence is provisionally recorded as 14.04.2028. Until 10.06.2025 the applicant was held at Zossen correctional facility (Justizvollzuganstalt Zossen).
By letter of 17.09.2025, received here on 22.09.2025, the applicant sought a judicial decision under §§ 109 ff. StVollzG and simultaneously applied for an interim order under § 114 StVollzG. This arose from an urgent, time-limited escort to the registry official requested on 11.06.2025, for which the applicant gave BGH case reference 5 StR 72/25. He sought a finding that failure to decide his application of 11.06.2025 and the oral refusal of a written decision were unlawful, and an order requiring the respondent in future to bring him before the registry official without delay (within 3 working days) and issue a written decision.
In its statement of 26.09.2025, the prison authority submitted that the responsible group leader, Ms Dahms, had researched the facts; two BGH orders had been handed to the applicant at the previous Zossen facility on 21.05.2025, and the order bearing case reference 5 StR 72/25 contained the rejection of the appeal on points of law (Revision). Following his application of 26.05.2025, the applicant had already been given an opportunity on each of 27.05., 28.05. and 06.06.2025 to have his applications recorded by the registry official. The time limit for an application for reopening (Wiederaufnahmeantrag) under § 356a StPO had expired on 28.05.2025. On 11.08.2025 the applicant was allowed a one-off escort to the registry official.
Legal assessment: The application for an interim order is already inadmissible and therefore had to be rejected. Under § 114 Abs. 2 Satz 1 StVollzG Bund, the sentence-enforcement chamber may suspend enforcement of a challenged measure if there is a danger that realisation of a right of the applicant will be frustrated or substantially impeded. Measured against this standard, a need for legal protection is already lacking. The provisional nature of an interim order means that it must generally not anticipate the final decision on the merits. Special urgency is neither apparent nor substantiated as sufficiently probable. Regarding the application for a declaration, interim legal protection is necessarily excluded by mootness, since the requested relief was already provided on 11 August 2025.
Costs: The decision on costs is based on § 121 Abs. 2 and Abs. 4 StVollzG, and the value determination on §§ 65, 60, 52 Abs. 1 to Abs. 3 GKG.
Notice of remedies: This decision, except for the determination of value, cannot be challenged (§ 114 Abs. 2 Satz 3 StVollzG). Decisions on interim orders under § 114 StVollzG cannot be challenged, including in respect of the obligation to bear costs.
Dr Busse-Muskala, Regional Court judge. Certified as a true copy: Berlin, 05.11.2025, Weber, JOSekr’in, registry clerk.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The Chamber relied on my having had access to the registry official on 27.05., 28.05. and 06.06.2025. These appointments predate my transfer to Heidering on 10.06.2025 and do not concern the application at issue. The decision therefore concerned a different set of facts from those submitted — five months after the application, when the time limit for the complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard had long expired.
Document source
Annex 83_F2 (LG Berlin I order of 04.11.2025, case reference 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz): Anlage_83_F2.pdf
The JVA Heidering statement referred to in this order is documented under F2-126.