Immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against the order of 24.06.2026, Open Statement and proof of fax transmission
On 01.07.2026 I lodged an immediate complaint against the order handed to me that same day at 17:25, namely the order of the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) of 24.06.2026 (Az. 589 StVK 86/26, chronology no. 161). I also raised an objection alleging a violation of the right to be heard as a precaution and, alternatively, made an application under § 33a StPO. In parallel, I published an Open Statement. Transmission to the Berlin Regional Court I was by fax at 23:49, 14 pages, status “Transmission: OK”.
JVA Heidering / Großbeeren, 01 July 2026 — To the Berlin Regional Court I, Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences, in advance by fax: 030 9014-5954. Az. 589 StVK 86/26.
Requests
- Set aside the Berlin Regional Court I order of 24.06.2026
- Remit the matter for a fresh decision
- Before a fresh decision, make all documents material to the decision fully available — particularly the complete statement of the Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin), the statement of Heidering prison (JVA Heidering) of 07.05.2026 and all notes, including the hearing note mentioned in the order
- After complete transmission, give an adequate opportunity to make a written statement
- Find that actions seeking legal protection, intentions to publish and hunger strikes must not be used as adverse prognostic factors without a specific factual basis
- Alternatively, hold a further oral hearing
I. Violation of the right to be heard
By letter of 11.06.2026, I requested that the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office and all documents material to the decision be sent to me before the hearing on 24.06.2026. On 17.06.2026 I received only three sheets printed on one side; the full reasons of the Prosecutor General’s Office have still not been transmitted to me. I received the JVA statement of 07.05.2026 only on 22.06.2026 at 19:25 — effectively one working day before the hearing. Serious legal examination and preparation were impossible in these circumstances.
II. Missing hearing note
The challenged order refers to a “hearing note that was prepared”, which has still not been sent to me. I therefore cannot examine whether my objections were documented correctly.
III. Failure to decide the request for press access
By letter of 11.06.2026, I requested admission of press representatives to the hearing. I received no decision; the hearing was closed.
IV. Impermissible use of actions seeking legal protection for an adverse prognosis of law-abiding conduct
The order uses adversely the fact that I went on hunger strikes, protested against postal checks, published documents and threatened to name justice-system staff. A hunger strike against documented blockades of access to registry officials, courts and post must not automatically be treated as an adverse prognostic factor.
V. Practical pressure to confess
The order relies on my not having come to terms with my offences and my denial of committing the act. My insistence on innocence is thus effectively used as an adverse prognostic factor — this is impermissible in such a sweeping form.
VI. Political dimension
The order uses my stated intention to continue political activities in connection with refusing a favourable prognosis of law-abiding conduct. Political activity, public criticism and media documentation are forms of conduct protected by fundamental rights.
VII. Contradictory factual basis concerning social contacts
The order states that I reported no social contacts other than telephone contact with my 16-year-old son. This finding contradicts the file — other prison documents expressly record numerous contacts, which are even used there to justify a risk of escape. The age itself is also incorrect: my son was born on 31.08.2010 and was fifteen, not sixteen, on 24.06.2026. Conversely, the diagnostic procedure of 12.03.2026 gives his age as “14 years” — also incorrect. Two official documents, two months apart, give two different wrong ages for the same person; neither is correct.
VIII. No specific prognosis of danger under § 57 StGB
The order primarily contains sweeping assessments instead of specific, current facts concerning the individual case. Less restrictive measures, such as directions, probation assistance or reporting obligations, were not seriously examined.
IX. Outcome
According to my complaint, the order rests on several procedural errors: (1) incomplete, late transmission of documents; (2) absence of the complete Prosecutor General’s Office statement; (3) JVA statement only one day before the hearing; (4) missing hearing note; (5) undecided request for press access; (6) impermissible use of actions seeking legal protection; (7) practical pressure to confess; (8) contradictory factual basis concerning social contacts; (9) absence of a specific prognosis of danger.
JVA Heidering / Großbeeren, 01 July 2026 — Public declaration concerning the immediate complaint
What Judge Lechner decided
Judge Lechner refused to suspend the remainder of the sentence, although I had previously complained repeatedly that documents material to the decision were not available to me fully and in time. The complete statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office has still not been transmitted to me; I received the JVA statement of 07.05.2026 only on the evening of 22.06.2026.
Closed hearing and no press
I had requested admission of press representatives or a timely decision on that request. I received no decision; the hearing was closed. If openness to the public is assessed as a danger while the press remains excluded, a closed system without effective scrutiny arises.
Seeking legal protection is treated as a danger
My hunger strikes were not an attack on prison administration but a final protest against the documented blockade of my access to registry officials, courts, post and defence. If access to legal protection is first impeded and protest against that blockade then serves as an adverse factor, the rule of law is turned on its head.
Freedom in exchange for a confession — I reject it
I will not confess merely to obtain freedom. Freedom at the price of a lie is no freedom. If my release is made conditional on accepting a judgment I consider wrong, social reintegration becomes a means of pressure.
My demand
I demand full judicial review of this order, full access to the file, release of the hearing note and a decision that examines specific facts rather than punishing my political position and pursuit of legal protection.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The immediate complaint was lodged on the very day the order was handed over, by fax at 23:49. There is a reason for this haste: observance of time limits had repeatedly been endangered in these proceedings. The Open Statement published simultaneously serves documentation rather than heightened rhetoric.
Document source
Immediate complaint (original): Anlage_140_F2_Sofortige_Beschwerde_589_StVK_86_26_revised_signed.pdf
Open Statement (original): Anlage_141_F2_Open_Statement_zur_Sofortigen_Beschwerde_589_StVK_86_26_DE_signed.pdf
Fax transmission report (original): Anlage_140-141_F2_Faxprotocol.pdf
Confirmation of dispatch: Fax-ID 16955729, sent on 01.07.2026 at 23:49 to +49 30 9014-5954 (Berlin Regional Court I), 14 pages, status “Transmission: OK”.