Application for a judicial decision and application for interim judicial protection against the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan

Dmitry Bagrash, c/o JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren — Großbeeren, 28.04.2026 — To the Landgericht Berlin I, Sentence Enforcement Chamber, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin (fax: 030 9014-2010). Subject: Application for a judicial decision and application for interim judicial protection against the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit of 17.04.2026, handed over on 24.04.2026.

Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby make: 1. An application for a judicial decision against the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit of 17.04.2026, handed to me on 24.04.2026, insofar as it justifies my placement in a closed regime, the refusal of an open regime and the refusal of relaxations of the prison regime by an alleged lack of personal suitability and risks of absconding and misuse; and 2. An application for interim judicial protection with the aim of provisionally suspending implementation of the challenged provisions and requiring the prison to decide again without delay on my suitability for an open regime and for relaxations, taking the court’s legal view into account.

In the alternative, I apply for restoration to the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) if the prison or the court should assume an earlier start of the time limit, contrary to the actual handover on 24.04.2026.

Reasons

The challenged sentence enforcement and reintegration plan is already legally defective in formal terms. According to its own contents, it is based on the diagnostic procedure of 12.03.2026 and the sentence planning conference of 13.03.2026, but is only dated 17.04.2026 and was only handed to me on 24.04.2026. This effectively denied me access to effective and timely judicial protection for a considerable period.

Moreover, the document does not show a proper allocation of personal responsibility. It contains neither a handwritten signature nor the name of a responsible person. It indicates only “Bearb.: E4” and, at the end, “Im Auftrag E4” (“On behalf of”). It therefore remains unclear who is personally responsible for the decision.

The sentence enforcement and reintegration plan is also substantively unlawful. The principal reasoning for a closed regime and against an open regime is linked primarily not to concrete, current and sound facts but to my stance towards the criminal judgment, my denial of the offence, the absence of an admission of guilt and my continuing struggle for legal review of my criminal proceedings.

This is shown precisely by the fact that the alleged risk of misuse is derived mainly from my “strong focus on fighting the German justice system”, from the fact that I “feel wrongly convicted”, and from the assumption that I intend to organise further protests after transfer to an open regime. My legitimate recourse to judicial protection, my criticism of the proceedings against me and my adherence to my defence position are thus impermissibly turned into negative prognostic factors. The challenged plan therefore effectively creates improper pressure to abandon my legal position and admit guilt.

The decision must also be placed in a longer documented overall context. Since the judgment was pronounced and throughout the appeal on points of law (Revision) and subsequent proceedings, my ability to have submissions recorded, inspect the file, obtain confirmations of receipt and exercise judicial protection effectively was repeatedly significantly obstructed. Of particular significance is that a statement submitted to the court by JVA Heidering of 26.09.2025 expressly shows that my case was discussed on 11.08.2025 with the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz because of several complaints, and a “common line” was developed there. At least, this gives rise to a documented suspicion of institutionally coordinated influence on my access to judicial protection.

The matter is urgent. The challenged plan directly affects my sentence enforcement status, my chances of an open regime, relaxations of the prison regime and my prospects of resocialisation. Without interim judicial protection, the realisation of my rights would be substantially impeded.

I therefore request: 1. that the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit of 17.04.2026 be set aside insofar as it establishes my placement in a closed regime, my unsuitability for an open regime and my unsuitability for relaxations of the prison regime; 2. that JVA Moabit be required to decide again without delay on my sentence enforcement status, an open regime and relaxations, taking the court’s legal view into account; 3. that implementation of the challenged provisions be provisionally suspended by way of interim judicial protection; 4. in the alternative, that restoration to the previous procedural position be granted if an earlier start of the time limit is assumed; 5. that JVA Moabit be required to submit the complete file, particularly the diagnostic procedure of 12.03.2026, the minutes or note of the sentence planning conference of 13.03.2026, all drafts and versions of the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan, and documentation of the handover on 24.04.2026.

Copies of this submission, together with the fax transmission report for the present filing, are being sent for documentation to journalists representing the media and to parliamentary bodies of the Land of Berlin.

Yours faithfully, Dmitry Bagrash

Annexes to the letter: Annex 1 — sentence enforcement and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit of 17.04.2026; Annex 2 — statement by JVA Heidering of 26.09.2025 (Annex 84_F2).