Administrative supervision complaint (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) to the President of the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) concerning the conduct of the hearing of 24.06.2026 and a renewed reminder of earlier unanswered administrative supervision complaints
On 25.06.2026 I addressed an administrative supervision complaint to the President of the Berlin Regional Court I. It concerns the conduct of the hearing of 24.06.2026 in proceedings 589 StVK 86/26. In particular, I complained that the hearing was closed, press representatives were not admitted, no decision was made on my request for press access, either in writing or orally, central documents were not available to me fully and in time, according to my perception my objections were not to be recorded, and my complaints at the hearing led neither to suspension nor to a proper subsequent opportunity to be heard.
I also recalled that earlier administrative supervision complaints and escalation letters to the President of the Berlin Regional Court I had still received no substantive reply, particularly concerning the systematic refusal to record submissions, failure to decide my submissions, file management and forwarding of procedurally relevant written submissions.
In the complaint, I requested, among other things, registration and written acknowledgment of receipt, examination of the conduct of the hearing of 24.06.2026, information on whether and in what form the hearing was documented, transmission of all existing documentation, examination of the failure to decide my press request, and a substantive written decision on the administrative supervision complaint. The Open Statement of 25.06.2026 was expressly enclosed as an annex and part of the public documentation.
(Annex 135_F2 / proof of fax transmission, Annex 136_F2 / proof of fax transmission / proof of fax transmission)
Subsequent proof of transmission: the fax evidence produced later documents transmission of Annex 135_F2 and Annex 136_F2 by fax on 29.06.2026 with status “OK”.
(Additionally: proof of fax transmission in the annex bundle Anlage 140-141_F2)
JVA Heidering / Grossbeeren, 25 June 2026 — To the President of the Berlin Regional Court I, Dr. Christoph Mauntel, Turmstrasse 91, 10559 Berlin (in advance by fax: 030 9014-2010)
I hereby lodge an administrative supervision complaint concerning the conduct of the hearing of 24.06.2026 in proceedings 589 StVK 86/26. I also recall my earlier administrative supervision complaint of 31.03.2025 against presiding Regional Court judge Groß (VRiLG)Presiding judge at the Berlin Regional Court I in criminal case 522 Ks 5/23. Dmitry Bagrash publicly alleges that he subsequently altered the judgment; on 02.09.2026 he filed a criminal complaint over this. No decision has yet been made on the complaint; the presumption of innocence applies. concerning the systematic refusal to record submissions, to which I have still received no substantive reply. I now see more than individual errors: a recurring pattern in which my legal submissions are delayed, handled incompletely, left unanswered or later used against me.
I. Subject of the administrative supervision complaint (conduct of the hearing)
- The hearing was closed.
- According to my perception, it did not take place in the room specified in the summons.
- Press representatives were not admitted.
- I received no decision on my prior request to admit the press either before or during the hearing.
- At the start of the hearing, according to my perception, only the judge and several masked justice-system staff were in the room.
- In response to my question about a person keeping the record, the judge said in substance that she was alone, no one would join her and there would be no record.
- My request to lodge protests and objections was initially refused or postponed until the end of the hearing.
- The JVA statement of 07.05.2026 was handed to me only on 22.06.2026 at 19:25.
- The letter from the Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin) was handed to me only in part (missing second page).
- The judge stated that this was immaterial: I knew the general sense of the allegations.
- Despite my express complaint, the hearing continued.
- Repeated reference was made to failure to “come to terms with the offence” (Straftataufarbeitung); my hunger strikes were cited as examples of prison-rule violations.
- At the end, I was informed that suspension of the remainder of the sentence would be refused.
II. Absence of documentation of the hearing
Particularly serious is the statement to me that there would be no record. Especially at a hearing deciding my freedom, my material objections must be documented in a traceable way. Without traceable documentation, an impression arises that the very points later decisive for legal remedies, a constitutional complaint and public scrutiny are intended to remain invisible.
III. Incomplete documents and violation of the right to be heard
Before the hearing, I had already requested that all documents material to the decision be sent to me in full. My freedom was considered although I had received central documents either incompletely or so late that serious preparation was impossible.
IV. Failure to decide the request for press access
By letter of 11.06.2026, I requested that the press be admitted to the hearing. I received no decision — although it is precisely my public documentation and media communication that are held adversely against me.
V. Practical pressure to confess
At the hearing, it was repeatedly stated that early release was impossible without coming to terms with the offence. I will not state that I committed an act I did not commit.
VI. Use of the hunger strike as an adverse factor
My hunger strikes were not attacks on prison administration but protests against documented blockades of my access to legal protection. If a prisoner obtains access to elementary legal opportunities only through a hunger strike, and that very hunger strike is later used against him, a cycle intolerable under the rule of law arises: legal protection is first blocked, the person affected then protests, and the protest is then used against him as an indicator of dangerousness.
VII. Connection with the earlier administrative supervision complaint of 31.03.2025
That earlier complaint against VRiLG Groß concerned the same underlying complex: access to courts, the registry, recording, files and effective defence. I have still received no substantive reply. The hearing of 24.06.2026 shows that the same mechanism continues.
VIII. Requests for administrative supervision (extract)
- Immediate registration and written acknowledgment of receipt
- Explain why the administrative supervision complaint of 31.03.2025 against VRiLG Groß remains unanswered
- Examine through administrative supervision the events concerning the hearing of 24.06.2026, particularly the failure to decide the press request
- State whether there is a record or other documentation of the hearing and send a copy
- Ensure that future submissions are placed on the file in full
- Issue a substantive written decision on this administrative supervision complaint
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This administrative supervision complaint documents that the problems concern not only the individual decision on suspension of the remainder of the sentence, but again issues of justice administration, file management, documentation, handling of incoming submissions, press access and decisions on my submissions. It connects with the earlier chronology entries on the failure to process administrative supervision complaints and the continued blockade of effective legal protection.