Lodging an appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) under § 116 StVollzG
On 13.01.2026 I lodged an appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) against the order of Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court) of 10.12.2025 (Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz) by having it recorded by the registry at Amtsgericht Zossen (Zossen Local Court), and at the same time applied for permission to appeal under § 116 StVollzG.
The subject concerns, in particular, the failure to decide my written application of 11.06.2025 to be brought before a registry officer, and the unlawful assumption of “manifest inadmissibility” by the prison administration and the registry.
I complain of a violation of my right to effective legal protection (Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG), since the absence of a written decision was not investigated and I am thereby effectively denied access to court. (Anlage 95_F2)
Amtsgericht Zossen, case reference 131 AR 1/26 — record, Zossen, 13.01.2026. Subject: appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) and application for permission to appeal under § 116 StVollzG.
Mr Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — identified by his prisoner identity document and the JVA data sheet — appears before Rechtspflegerin Böhme (a judicial officer exercising independent procedural functions) and declares: I raise a complaint concerning procedural violations (Verfahrensrüge) and a complaint concerning violations of substantive law (Sachrüge).
1. An appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) is lodged against the order of Landgericht Berlin I of 10.12.2025, served on 14.12.2025, case reference 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz.
2. In the alternative, permission to appeal on points of law is requested.
3. Set aside the order and remit the matter for a new decision to a different judge sitting alone or a different Chamber for the Execution of Sentences.
4. In the alternative (if the court hearing the appeal on points of law decides the merits itself), find that the failure to decide my written application of 11.06.2025 to be brought before the registry officer, and the oral refusal to issue a written decision, were unlawful.
5. Charge the costs of the proceedings to the State Treasury.
On the complaint concerning substantive law 1: The applicant sought to be brought before the registry officer, who was then to examine whether there were obstacles to the appeal on points of law. The failure to bring him there impeded the applicant in exercising his rights, since there had previously been obstacles to recording submissions within the prison. Landgericht Berlin I did not give this sufficient consideration in its challenged decision.
On the complaint concerning substantive law 2: The applicant objects to the assessment of his applications as “an abuse of rights” and “made contrary to his better knowledge”, since these characteristics are precisely absent from his applications. In making the applications, the applicant intended only to safeguard his rights and preserve his necessary access to justice. Landgericht Berlin I did not comply with the requirement of objectivity in judicial decisions.
In all other respects, the applicant again refers to the complaint document he drafted himself, which is attached to this appeal on points of law. No further statements are made at present.
Read aloud, approved and signed. Böhme, Rechtspflegerin. Dmitry Bagrash.
To Landgericht Berlin, 99th Chamber for the Execution of Sentences, Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz (with a request to forward it to the Kammergericht as the court hearing the appeal on points of law).
Appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) and application for permission to appeal under § 116 StVollzG against the order of Landgericht Berlin — 99th Chamber for the Execution of Sentences — of 10.12.2025, Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz, served on 15.12.2025.
I, Dmitry Bagrash, currently at JVA Heidering, register no. 327/25/7, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren, hereby lodge an appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) against the above order and apply for permission to appeal.
A. Applications
1. Grant permission to appeal on points of law. 2. Set aside the order of Landgericht Berlin of 10.12.2025. 3. Remit the matter for a new decision to a different judge sitting alone / to the Chamber for the Execution of Sentences of Landgericht Berlin. 4. In the alternative (if the court hearing the appeal on points of law decides the merits itself): find that the failure to decide my written application of 11.06.2025 and the oral refusal to issue a written decision were unlawful.
B. Grounds for permission to appeal (§ 116 StVollzG)
Permission to appeal on points of law is necessary to develop the law and ensure consistent case law, because the order raises fundamental questions of effective legal protection in the prison setting:
1. Effective legal protection despite refusal of a written decision: On the one hand, the challenged order requires a prisoner first to receive a decision from the prison administration refusing the request (in part) before applying for an order requiring action. At the same time, my assertion that I have not been issued a formal written decision to this day remained uninvestigated. An impermissible circle in legal protection results: without a decision there is no effective legal protection — and the absence of that decision is simultaneously held against me.
2. Limits of preliminary examination of “manifest inadmissibility” by the prison administration and the registry: The order relies principally on the time limit for a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard (§ 356a StPO) having expired, and infers from this that the facility need not bring me out. A practical barrier to access is thereby created, although it is precisely for the court to decide whether the remedy is available, questions of time limits, restoration to the previous procedural position, and the specific content of the submissions.
3. Requirement of objectivity and stigmatisation as “abuse of rights”: The order contains evaluative statements (“contrary to better knowledge”, “an abuse of rights”) which, without a sound factual basis, constitute stigmatisation and are capable of impairing future legal protection.
B.1 Relevant case law
(1) Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG guarantees not only the formal possibility of applying to a court, but requires judicial review that is effective in practice (BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court), Beschl. v. 20.07.2020 – 2 BvR 2214/19; BVerfG, Beschl. v. 22.09.2017 – 2 BvR 455/17). (2) Courts hearing appeals must not interpret the statutory requirements for permission to appeal (§ 116 Abs. 1 StVollzG) in a way that renders the appeal ineffective (the same decisions). (3) Prisoners must not be required to do what is effectively impossible; courts must take account of the specific prison situation (BVerfG, Beschl. v. 16.05.2018 – 2 BvR 635/17; BVerfG, Beschl. v. 06.02.2020 – 2 BvR 1719/19). (4) Effective legal protection requires sufficient investigation of the facts (BVerfG, Beschl. v. 09.12.2020 – 2 BvR 2194/19). (5) If an appeal on points of law is declared for recording by the registry, the Rechtspfleger must guide and advise the applicant on form and content (OLG Hamm (Hamm Higher Regional Court), Beschl. v. 21.12.1999 – 1 Vollz (Ws) 241/99).
C. Grounds for the appeal on points of law
I. Complaint concerning procedural violations 1 — failure to address / incorrect handling of my central application: My application under point 1 in the original proceedings expressly sought a finding that the failure to decide my written application of 11.06.2025 and the oral refusal to issue a written decision were unlawful. The challenged order does not address this as required. It is particularly contradictory that elsewhere the order requires a refusal decision for an application seeking an order requiring action, but in the same proceedings gives me no effective help when I submit that it is precisely a written decision that has not been issued.
II. Complaint concerning procedural violations 2 — insufficient investigation of the facts: I submitted that, in response to my written application of 11.06.2025, I was told in substance that I would receive a written decision and had to wait, but that I have received none to this day. If the facility does not issue a decision, the court must not use its absence against the prisoner while simultaneously denying legal protection. This investigation did not take place.
III. Complaint concerning substantive law 1 — erroneous barrier to legal protection through preliminary examination of time limits and the availability of the remedy: The order bases the refusal principally on the time limit for a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard (§ 356a StPO) having expired. I respond: I sought access to the registry officer precisely because there had previously been deficiencies in recording submissions and because matters such as time limits, restoration to the previous procedural position and the availability of the remedy must be examined by the competent court, rather than the facility.
IV. Complaint concerning substantive law 2 — impermissible or unsubstantiated stigmatisation: The order states that I do not accept the legal position “contrary to my better knowledge” and that my applications appear to be “an abuse of rights”. These statements are unnecessary for the decision and lack a sound factual basis. My applications sought to safeguard my rights and remove specific obstacles to access to justice.
D. Supplementary reference to the order of 10.12.2025 concerning § 114 Abs. 2 StVollzG (Anlage 88_F2)
On 17.12.2025 I also received another order under the same case reference, in which my complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard was treated as a Gegenvorstellung (request for reconsideration) and rejected. Insofar as it is asserted there that my access to statements was safeguarded, I point out that I repeatedly complained of problems with service and annexes. The focus of this appeal on points of law remains the order of 10.12.2025 (Anlage 87_F2).
E. Closing request
I request that my application be recorded and the appeal on points of law and its grounds be forwarded within the time limit.
Dmitry Bagrash, 13.01.2026
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
The appeal on points of law was recorded at Amtsgericht Zossen — by the Rechtspflegerin who actually opened this route. I expressly record this because it shows that recording a submission is possible when it is not prevented. The contrast with the events at Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court) is the core of this entry.
Source of the document
Anlage 95_F2 (record of AG Zossen, Az. 131 AR 1/26, with the appeal on points of law and its grounds): Anlage 95_F2.pdf
This appeal on points of law was subsequently sent several times as an annex to requests for information on the status of proceedings and escalations, see F2-134, F2-135 and F2-138.