Letter to the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court)
Application for access to the file, application for press admission, public documentation
On 10.06.2026 I faxed a letter (030 9014-5954) to the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) in case 589 StVK 86/26. First, I applied for the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office) observations to be provided before the hearing on 24.06.2026, relying on Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, § 454 Abs. 1 S. 3 StPO and Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK. Second, I applied for press representatives to be admitted to the oral hearing, relying on § 169 Abs. 1 GVG, Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 2 GG and Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG. The letter also pointed out that it was published as Annex 125_F2 on my public documentation website and that a version read aloud by a narrator was available on the Unkremlin YouTube channel.
As an annex, I sent with the same fax my Open Statement (Annex 126_F2) of the same day, in which I publicly set out my position on the current overall situation of my case.
(Annex 125_F2)
Application for provision of the prosecution’s observations — application for admission of the public
JVA Heidering (Heidering prison) / Großbeeren, 11 June 2026 — To the Landgericht Berlin I, sentence enforcement chamber, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin (by fax: 030 9014-5954). Case reference 589 StVK 86/26.
I. Application for provision of the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft’s observations
I refer to the court’s summons letter of 04.06.2026 for the hearing on 24.06.2026 (decision on suspension of the remainder of the sentence on probation under § 57 StGB). According to the summons letter, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft opposed early release; I have not yet received those observations.
I apply to be provided in full, before the hearing, with the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft’s observations and all other documents relevant to the decision (expert reports, prison reports and JVA observations).
Legal basis: Under § 454 Abs. 1 S. 3 StPO, I must be given an opportunity to submit observations — this presupposes knowledge of the opposing arguments. A hearing without such knowledge does not meet the requirement of Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (right to be heard) (see BVerfGE 7, 275; 86, 133). I also refer to § 32f StPO in conjunction with §§ 147, 474 StPO and Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK.
II. Application for admission of press representatives to the oral hearing
Under § 169 Abs. 1 GVG, court hearings are generally public. For decisions by the sentence enforcement chamber under § 57 StGB, the court determines the form of the hearing at its discretion under § 462a Abs. 1 in conjunction with § 454 StPO; however, the public cannot be excluded from the outset without the exceptional grounds under §§ 171b, 172 GVG being present.
I assert a substantial public interest: ongoing public documentation, an application filed with the EGMR (European Court of Human Rights) (313 pages), and parliamentary and journalistic enquiries. I refer to Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 2 GG (freedom of the press) and Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG (open justice as a corollary of the rule-of-law principle).
III. Notice: public documentation
I draw the court’s attention to the fact that this letter is recorded as Annex 125_F2 in my public documentation of the proceedings and is publicly accessible. As an annex, I send by fax my Open Statement (Annex 126_F2) of the same day.
I request written acknowledgement of receipt of this letter by fax.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The letter documents that I expressly raised the violation of my right to be heard before the hearing. The simultaneous public documentation serves transparency and the protection of my rights. An acknowledgement of receipt is still outstanding at the time of writing.
Document provenance
Letter to the Landgericht Berlin (original): Anlage125_F2.pdf
Fax transmission log (together with Annex 126_F2): FAxprotokol Anlage125_126.pdf
Transmission confirmation: Fax ID 16830527, sent on 10.06.2026 at 23:25 to +49 30 9014-5954 (Landgericht Berlin I), 6 pages, status “Übertragung: OK” (“Transmission: OK”).