Receipt of the LG Berlin order (99

Berlin I Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin I), Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz — order of 10.12.2025 (certified copy). In prison proceedings between Dmitry Bagrash (applicant) and Heidering prison (Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering; respondent), Gz. MTAL 1 - AR1024. Request for a judicial decision under § 109 StVollzG.

The Berlin I Regional Court — 99th Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences — made the following order on 10 December 2025 through Regional Court Judge Dr Busse-Muskala sitting alone:

1. The requests for a judicial decision of 17 September 2025 are rejected with costs.
2. The value of the subject matter of the proceedings is assessed at 600,00 €.

Reasons

The applicant is serving a prison sentence at Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering for aggravated arson under the judgment of the Berlin Regional Court of 22 July 2024. The recorded expected end of the sentence is 14 April 2028. Until 10 June 2025, the applicant was held at Justizvollzugsanstalt Zossen.

By letter of 17 September 2025, the applicant requested a judicial decision under §§ 109 ff. StVollzG. He also sought an interim order under § 114 StVollzG, which was rejected by the chamber’s order of 4 November 2025. The background was an “urgent, time-bound” escorted visit to the registry official requested by the applicant on 11 June 2025, for which he cited BGH case reference 5 StR 72/25.

The applicant takes the view that the respondent had no authority to examine any time limits; this was solely for the BGH. The respondent’s task as a prison was only to enable access to justice organisationally (production, post, fax), not to examine whether time limits had already expired. He says he made clear that not all his complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard (at the BGH) had been recorded and that recording had partly been refused. He claims that, in response to his written request of 11 June 2025, group leader Dahms told him he would receive a written decision from MTAL and had to wait; he says he has still received no formal written decision. The “one-off offer” of an escorted visit received on 11 August 2025, after he had used a hunger strike as a means of pressure, “could no longer remedy the irreparable damage that had already occurred”.

The applicant requests: 1. a finding that the failure to decide his request of 11 June 2025 and the oral refusal of a written decision were unlawful; 2. an order requiring the respondent to give him access to the registry official without delay, no later than 3 working days after receipt of a request, and henceforth to decide corresponding requests in writing and in time, with reasons and notice of remedies.

The respondent requests rejection of the requests as unfounded. It submits that the responsible group leader, Ms Dahms, investigated the facts and established in a memorandum of 13 June 2025 that the applicant had been handed two BGH orders at the previous facility in Zossen on 21 May 2025; one (Az. 5 StR 72/25) contained the rejection of the appeal on points of law. Following the applicant’s request of 26 May 2025, he had already been given opportunities on 27./28. May and 6 June 2025 to have requests recorded by the registry official. The time limit for a request to reopen the proceedings (Wiederaufnahmeantrag) under § 356a StPO had expired on 28 May 2025. On 11 August 2025, the applicant was given a one-off escorted visit to the registry official; by letter of 11 August 2025, he stated that all his demands had been formally met.

The applicant was given an opportunity to comment and did so by letters of 21 October 2025 and 24 November 2025.

Legal assessment: The requests for a judicial decision are in any event unfounded and therefore had to be rejected. The request for a declaration (point 1) is procedurally available because the original matter has become moot; whether a legitimate interest in a declaration exists (risk of recurrence) is doubtful but may be left open, since the request was in any event unfounded. The refusal of an escorted visit involved no error in the exercise of discretion: under § 45 Abs. 1 StVollzG Bln, an escorted visit “may” be permitted where necessary for special reasons; prisoners have no entitlement to its provision, only a right to a decision free of errors in the exercise of discretion. Neither the Local Court (Amtsgericht) registry nor the detention facility is required to record manifestly inadmissible remedies or enable an escorted visit for them (see Rostock Higher Regional Court (OLG Rostock), order of 2 June 2017 – 20 Ws 94/17). The court considers that the applicant refuses to accept this legal position “despite knowing better”, making his repeated requests appear “an abuse of rights” (see OLG Rostock, order of 1.11.2016 – 20 Ws 263/16). It states that he is not denied effective judicial protection, since he remains free to submit his complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard in writing or seek legal assistance; moreover, he was in fact granted an escorted visit on 11 August 2025.

The chamber adds that logistical expense, given the known inadequate staffing and material resources of the Berlin prison system, cannot alone justify refusal of escorted visits, because the State must provide resources guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the detained person (see BVerfG, orders of 4 May 2015 – 2 BvR 1753/14 and 26 October 2011 – 2 BvR 1539/09). However, since the respondent cited logistical considerations not as the sole reason but in addition to the decisive considerations (lack of a comprehensible purpose for the escorted visit, escorted visits already granted repeatedly), the chamber considers this unobjectionable.

The court states that the request under point 2 (an obligation to provide future escorted visits within 3 working days) is already inadmissible and otherwise unfounded, because there is no entitlement to an escorted visit regardless of its grounds, and the StVollzG grants no power to set judicial time limits for future requests.

Decision on costs and the value in dispute: The costs decision follows from § 121 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 S. 1 StVollzG. The assessment of the value in dispute is based on §§ 65 S. 1, 60, 52 Abs. 1 GKG; given the relatively limited financial means of most prisoners, it is to be set at a low level (see KG JurBüro 2007, 532). The chamber assessed the value in dispute at 300,- euros for each request, hence 600,- euros in total.

Notice of remedies

An appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) against the decision on the merits (§ 109 StVollzG) is admissible where review is required to develop the law or ensure uniform case law; it must be lodged within one month of service with the court whose decision is challenged, and grounds must be supplied within that period. Decisions on interim orders under § 114 StVollzG cannot be challenged, including as to liability for costs. An immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against the costs decision is admissible if the value of the subject matter of the complaint exceeds 200 EUR, within one week of service.

Dr Busse-Muskala, Regional Court Judge. Berlin, 10.12.2025. Certified as a true copy (certified by machine processing — valid without a signature).

Enclosed: communication from JVA Heidering of 04.12.2025 (Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz), stating that the applicant’s submission of 24.11.2025 presented no new information that could lead to a different assessment; it refers to the statements of 26.09.2025 and 05.11.2025 (on behalf: Lohmeier, facility section management 1 (V)).