Comprehensive response to LG Berlin concerning the JVA Heidering statements

Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren, B.-Nr. 327/25-7 — To the Berlin I Regional Court, chambers for the execution of criminal sentences, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin. Date: 24.11.2025. Az.: 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz. Subject: response to the statements of JVA Heidering (MTAL 1 – AR1024; letter of 07.11.2025) and supplementary grounds for my request under §§ 109, 115 Abs. 3 StVollzG.

1. Procedural status: § 114 StVollzG concluded — § 109 StVollzG still pending

I am aware that my request for an interim order under § 114 StVollzG has already been decided by order of 04.11.2025; according to the notice of remedies, the order cannot be challenged (§ 114 Abs. 2 S. 3 StVollzG). This written submission therefore primarily provides further grounds for my main request under § 109 StVollzG and documents the violation of the right to be heard in the urgent proceedings, also with a view to a possible later constitutional complaint and, if appropriate, an individual application to the EGMR.

2. No timely access to the JVA statements — violation of the right to be heard

By letter of 06.10.2025, the chamber informed me that it referred to the JVA Heidering statement of 26.09.2025 and had enclosed the annexes. In fact, the envelope received by me on 08.10.2025 contained neither the JVA statement nor annexes; it bore no postmark / postage marking. I received statement MTAL 1 – AR1024 only on 10.11.2025 — together with a copy of the order in the urgent proceedings already issued on 04.11.2025. The decision in the proceedings under § 114 StVollzG was thus made without first giving me an opportunity to be heard on material submissions by the JVA.

3. The JVA exceeding its competence: calculating the deadline itself instead of merely providing assistance in execution

JVA Heidering submits that I had already had repeated opportunities at the previous facility to lodge complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard before the registry official (UKB), and that the one-week period under § 356a StPO had already expired. This argument is legally misguided: only the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), not the prison authority, may assess the admissibility and timeliness of such a complaint. The JVA’s sole task is to enable access to justice organisationally, not to assess whether time limits have expired or remedies have prospects of success. I made clear from the outset that not all my complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard were recorded in full at JVA Moabit and that I had already applied to the BGH for restoration of the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung) at the end of May 2025 to compensate for these deficiencies.

4. Failure to issue a written decision — irreparable damage

On 10.06.2025 (orally) and 11.06.2025 (in writing), I requested an urgent escorted visit to the registry official for a matter subject to a deadline. Group leader Dahms told me that I would receive a written reply from MTAL and had to wait; I have still received no formal written decision. On 17.07.2025 I received the two BGH orders of 19.06.2025 — at a time when the denial of UKB access had already caused irreparable damage. The “one-off” UKB opportunity offered on 11.08.2025 could no longer remedy the damage because the relevant time limits had already expired.

5. Hunger strike in response to the denial of rights — no “extortion”

The JVA characterises my hunger strike as “extortionate”. In fact, the hunger strike was the only means left to draw attention to the months-long denial of rights. The JVA’s own account shows that a one-off escorted visit to the UKB was only considered at all after the hunger strike began. It is not the hunger strike that is “extortionate”, but the fact that recognition as a citizen seeking legal protection was effectively made conditional on a hunger strike.

6. Post, missing annexes and missing records — a structural problem

In the statement of 07.11.2025 (Annex 85_F2), the JVA submits that no post was “held back” and that JVA Heidering keeps no records of incoming or handed-over letters. The JVA thus itself admits that there is no postal documentation; it is undisputed that the announced annexes to the letter of 06.10.2025 did not reach me. I maintain the evidential requests made in Annex 80_F2 (inspection of the envelope, proof of dispatch by the court registry, postal routes within the JVA).

7. Legal assessment and fundamental significance (BVerfG / EGMR)

The questions raised go beyond my individual case: may a prison authority effectively decide, by calculating deadlines itself, whether a prisoner can reach the BGH in time? Is it sufficient for prisons to keep no postal records at all, despite annexes systematically disappearing? How should the scope of Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG in prison be understood if prisoners can in practice only make themselves heard through hunger strikes? I state as a precaution that, after exhausting domestic judicial remedies, I intend to lodge a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and, if appropriate, an individual application to the EGMR.

8. Requests

I request: 1. A formal decision on my request under § 109 StVollzG and no “informal disposal”. 2. A finding that the failure to issue a written decision on my request of 11.06.2025, the purely oral refusal without written form, and the resulting prevention of timely access to the registry official were unlawful. 3. An order requiring JVA Heidering henceforth to give me access to the registry official within three working days of specific requests and to decide such requests in writing, with reasons and a notice of remedies. 4. Alternatively, a finding under § 115 Abs. 3 StVollzG that the failure or delay in deciding and the denial of access to the UKB were unlawful. 5. The taking of evidence concerning the postal chain requested in my written submission of 21.10.2025. 6. Treatment of this submission as a complaint alleging violation of the right to be heard / request for reconsideration by the deciding court (Gehörsrüge/Gegenvorstellung), insofar as the order of 04.11.2025 was issued without first giving an opportunity to be heard.

Yours sincerely, Dmitry Bagrash, B.-Nr. 327/25-7