Receipt of the statement of Heidering correctional facility (JVA Heidering)
On 10.11.2025 I received the JVA Heidering statement for the first time, forwarded through Berlin Regional Court. It thereby became evident that the Heidering facility management had unlawfully taken over the court’s functions and — in coordination with the Berlin Senate Department for Justice — decided on its own authority on my access to justice. These decisions occurred only after irreparable damage had long arisen, particularly through the refusal to bring me before the registry official in proceedings subject to deadlines. Moreover, my hunger strike — the only functioning way to obtain any access to legal means — is portrayed in the statement as “extortion”, rather than addressing the preceding systematic denial of legal protection. (Annex 84_F2)
JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren. Via EGVP to Berlin Regional Court — 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz. In the prison matter of Dmitry Bagrash. Statement of 26 September 2025.
An order rejecting the application for a judicial decision of 22 September 2025 is requested, as it is unfounded on the merits.
Grounds
The applicant is serving the prison sentence for aggravated arson shown in the enforcement sheet of 29 July 2025 (Annex 1). The current end of sentence is recorded as 14 April 2028. Among other things, he seeks to be escorted to the registry official without delay upon a corresponding application and to receive a reasoned, timely written decision with notice of remedies. He also seeks a finding that failure to decide his application to be brought before the registry official and JVA Heidering’s orally communicated refusal of a written decision were unlawful. The application is unfounded: the applicant’s request for an escort was complied with in principle.
The prisoner was transferred from Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit) to JVA Heidering on 10 June 2025. Already on 11 June 2025, using a request slip (Vormelder; Annex Bl. 438 GefPA), he requested an urgent escort to the registry official for time-limited complaints alleging a violation of the right to be heard to be entered on the record at the registry. He gave case reference 5 STR 72/25 (BGH). The responsible group leader, Ms Dahms, researched the facts to be able to decide the application because, unlike at the previous facility, escorting the prisoner from JVA Heidering to the registry official of Zossen Local Court (Amtsgericht Zossen) involves considerable logistical and staffing effort. In her note of 13 June 2025 she ultimately found that two Federal Court of Justice orders had been handed to the prisoner at the previous facility on 21 May 2025. The order bearing case reference 5 STR 72/25 (BGH) of 07 May 2025 contains the rejection of his appeal on points of law against the LG Berlin I judgment of 22 July 2024.
Following a request slip of 26 May 2025, the prisoner was given an opportunity on 27 May 2025 to have his applications recorded by the registry official. According to the registry clerk, the application was recorded on 27 May 2025 and supplements on 28 May 2025. Finally, on 06 June 2025 the prisoner again appeared before the registry official and again received copies of his applications, which he said he no longer possessed. An application under § 356a StPO must be made within one week after learning of the violation of the right to be heard, in writing or for the record at the registry of the court hearing the appeal on points of law; accordingly the deadline would have expired on 28 May 2025. The responsible group management ultimately concluded that the application could be rejected, since the applicable filing periods in the proceedings named by the prisoner himself had expired before his transfer to this facility.
In a discussion between group management and MTAL 1/TAL 1 (V), group management was promised that the matter would be examined. No particular urgency was identified here in view of the above. To give weight to his demand, the prisoner began a hunger strike on the afternoon of 04 August 2025. On Monday, 11 August 2025, owing to several pending cross-facility complaints by the prisoner, the matter was discussed with the responsible case officer at the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz, SenJustV) and a common approach was developed. Under it, the prisoner is to be allowed a one-off escort to the registry official in this matter, both to give him the opportunity to be heard that he demands and to show him that JVA Heidering will not permit an excessive proliferation of escorts to the registry official. The extortionate character of his hunger strike, which he had already used to achieve his aims at the previous facility, was recognised but in this case subordinated to the above higher-ranking aim.
The prisoner essentially rejected the proposal; he asserted proceedings other than those requested, but did not specify them when asked. A reference to the possibility of applying there for restoration to the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) if appropriate was also disregarded. His wish for a written rejection, which he said he wanted to publish, was refused because his request for an escort to the registry official had been complied with in principle. By letter of 11 August 2025 the prisoner stated that he was ending his hunger strike because all his demands had now been formally met. Future prisoner applications for an escort to the registry official will be granted immediately in light of the findings gained in this case. A decision in accordance with the application is requested.
On behalf, Lohmeier, facility section management 1 (V). Annexes: enforcement sheet of 29 July 2025; 4 extracts from the prisoner’s personal file.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This statement provides written evidence of coordination between the facility and its supervisory authority: a “common approach” was developed with the Senate Department on 11.08.2025. At the same time, my hunger strike is called “extortion” — precisely the means to which I resorted because access to the court was denied. In my assessment, the facility decided questions that belonged to the court and coordinated this with its supervisory authority.
Document source
Annex 84_F2 (JVA Heidering statement of 26.09.2025): Anlage_84_F2.pdf
The sentence-enforcement chamber’s rejection order of 04.11.2025 based on this statement is documented under F2-125; the later supplementary statement of 07.11.2025 under F2-127.