Receipt of the order of LG Berlin (Berlin Regional Court) (99
StVK), Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz (of 10.12.2025): rejection of my complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard against the order of 04.11.2025 (§ 114 Abs. 2 StVollzG)
On 17.12.2025 I received the order of 10.12.2025, by which LG Berlin rejected as inadmissible my complaint of 24.11.2025 alleging a violation of the right to be heard against the order of 04.11.2025 (interim order under § 114 Abs. 2 StVollzG). The reasons given were that decisions under § 114 Abs. 2 S. 3 StVollzG cannot be challenged and that “Gegenvorstellungen” (requests for reconsideration) against decisions that cannot be challenged are excluded. The court also treated my complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard as a Gegenvorstellung and stated that it had neither been credibly substantiated nor was otherwise apparent that I had been denied access to the JVA statements; the statement of 26.09.2025 had been sent to me and I had expressly referred to it in my letter of 21.10.2025. (Anlage 88_F2)
Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz — order of 10.12.2025 (certified copy). In the proceedings concerning prison administration: Dmitry Bagrash (applicant) against Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering (Heidering correctional facility, respondent), Gz. MTAL 1 - AR1024. Application for an interim order under § 114 Abs. 2 StVollzG.
Landgericht Berlin I — 99th Chamber for the Execution of Sentences — made the following order on 10 December 2025:
The applicant’s complaint of 24 November 2025 alleging a violation of the right to be heard against the Chamber’s order of 4 November 2025 is rejected as inadmissible.
Reasons
The Chamber’s aforementioned order is not subject to further challenge under § 114 Abs. 2 Satz 3 StVollzG. Gegenvorstellungen (requests for reconsideration) against decisions that cannot be challenged are excluded because legal remedies must be regulated in the written legal order and courts are prohibited from independently closing supposed gaps in the system of legal protection (BVerfG, NJW 2003, 1924; NJW 2007, 2538; Kammergericht Berlin, order of 01.09.2011, 4 – 191/11).
The purported complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard is treated as a Gegenvorstellung, since it has neither been credibly substantiated nor is otherwise apparent that the applicant’s access to the JVA statements was not safeguarded during the proceedings. The respondent’s statement of 26 September 2025 was sent to the applicant for information and an opportunity to comment. In his letter of 21 October 2025, the applicant exercised his right to be heard and expressly referred to the respondent’s statement of 26 September 2025.
Dr. Busse-Muskala, Judge at the Landgericht. Berlin, 10.12.2025. The accuracy of the copy is certified (certified by automated processing — valid without a signature).
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard was rejected by an order bearing the same date as the decision on the merits. The mechanism was thus repeated at this level too: the remedy intended to cure the violation of the right to be heard was decided without a separate examination of the arguments.
Source of the document
Anlage 88_F2 (order of LG Berlin I, Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz, 10.12.2025, rejection of the complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard, certified copy): Anlage_88_F2.pdf
For the order made under the same case reference on the same day, see F2-130 (Anlage 87_F2); a supplementary reference also appears in the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde), see F2-133.