Order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) in proceedings 5 Ws 17/26 on the appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) concerning access to the registry official
On 02.07.2026 I received the certified copy of the order of the Kammergericht — 5th Criminal Division (Strafsenat) — of 12.06.2026 in proceedings 5 Ws 17/26. It concerned my appeal on points of law against the order of the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) — Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences — of 10.12.2025 rejecting my request for a judicial decision concerning an escorted visit to the registry official.
The Kammergericht rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible. At the same time, the Senate found that the appeal in principle met the requirements of time limit and form; inadmissibility was nevertheless based on the absence of admissible requests for a judicial decision.
This order matters for the chronology because it concerns another central area of legal protection: access to the registry officialUrkundsbeamter der Geschäftsstelle (UKB) — the registry officer before whom a prisoner without legal assistance can declare a legal remedy orally for the record., recording of actions seeking legal protection and judicial review of refused or delayed decisions. This order was later the subject of the constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 (chronology no. 166).
ORDER — Kammergericht, Az. 5 Ws 17/26 (599 StVK 215/25 Vollz Berlin Regional Court I)
In the prison proceedings of sentenced prisoner Dmitry Bagrash, born on 9 May 1968, currently at JVA Heidering, Gef.-Buch-Nr. 327/25/7, concerning an escorted visit to the registry official. Ordered by the Kammergericht — 5th Criminal Division (Strafsenat) — on 12 June 2026.
Operative part
“The prisoner’s appeal on points of law against the order of the Berlin Regional Court I — Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences — of 10 December 2025 concerning rejection of the request for a judicial decision is rejected as inadmissible. The prisoner shall bear the costs of his remedy.”
I. Facts
The complainant is currently serving a prison sentence at Heidering prison (Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering). By letter of 17 September 2025, he made a request for a judicial decision to the Berlin Regional Court I. Under point 1), he sought a finding that the failure to decide his request of 11 June 2025 to be brought before the registry official and the oral refusal of a written decision were unlawful. Under point 2), he requested that the prison be required to give him access to the registry official without delay, no later than three working days after receipt of a request, and henceforth decide corresponding requests in writing and in time.
After rejecting the request for interim legal protection on 4 November 2025, the Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences also rejected the requests in the main proceedings by order of 10 December 2025. In his appeal on points of law of 13 January 2026, the complainant alleged violations of procedural and substantive law.
II. Reasons for rejection
Form: The appeal on points of law in principle meets the requirements of time limit and form (§ 118 Abs. 1 and Abs. 3 StVollzG). The record does refer to an enclosed document drafted by the complainant himself — this is in principle defective, because the recording court official must actively participate in drafting and assume responsibility. In this case, however, the record does not merely contain such a reference, but also an independent request and independent grounds, for which the judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin) assumed responsibility with her signature.
Admissibility (request 1, declaration that failure to decide was unlawful): In the Senate’s view, the request lacks the necessary explanation of an interest in a judicial declaration (Feststellungsinteresse). The matter had become moot with the passage of time — the measure originally sought (production within a one-week period) had become devoid of purpose because that period had elapsed. The Senate denies a risk of recurrence: the complainant merely asserted its existence without setting out specific circumstances — “especially since the complainant himself […] submits that on 11 August 2025 an escorted visit to the registry official was ‘offered’ to him”. An interest in a declaration owing to a serious violation of fundamental rights (Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG) is also denied: the complainant did not explain why the alternative of providing his own written grounds would have been unreasonable for him — on the contrary, his self-drafted grounds for the appeal on points of law indicate that he considers himself quite capable of providing grounds for remedies himself.
The Senate notes that Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering “correctly decided, in view of the outlined legal standard, henceforth to grant requested escorted visits to the registry official ‘immediately’ and ‘unconditionally’.”
Admissibility (request 2, regulation of future practice): The Senate considers this request inadmissible as well — it is not directed at a specific measure within § 109 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StVollzG but seeks general regulation of future requests. Interpreted as a preventive request for an injunction, it also lacks the requisite special need for legal protection, since neither a risk of recurrence nor a specific danger of irreparable harm was set out.
III. Costs decision
The costs decision is based on §§ 121 Abs. 4 StVollzG, 473 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO.
Signed: Dr. Mann, Kelting-Scholz, Dr. Schäuble. Certified as a true copy by Pelzer, JSekr’in, registry official, Berlin, 24.06.2026 (machine-certified).
Kammergericht, 5th Criminal Division (Strafsenat), Az. 5 Ws 17/26, order of 12 June 2026. Previous instance: Berlin Regional Court I, 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz. Signed: Dr. Mann, Kelting-Scholz, Dr. Schäuble. Certified copy of 24.06.2026.
Where a remedy can be supported with grounds only for the record or through a lawyer:
“If a complainant — as when providing grounds for an appeal on points of law (Revision; § 345 Abs. 2 StPO) or a Rechtsbeschwerde (§ 118 Abs. 3 StPO) — can provide grounds for a remedy only for the record at the registry or with a lawyer’s involvement, the entitlement to a decision free of errors in the exercise of discretion on a request for an escorted visit to the registry official develops into an entitlement to that escorted visit.“
Preliminary examination by the facility:
“It has no authority to carry out a ‘preliminary examination’ of whether a remedy is admissible or even sensible.”
Also for remedies that may be drafted personally:
“But also for lodging and providing grounds for remedies which — alongside a registry record — may permissibly also be supported or lodged in one’s own writing …, an escorted visit to the registry official is to be granted to a complainant as a rule. Detained persons pursuing remedies are also entitled to exercise a statutory choice at their own discretion.”
Role of the judicial officer (Rechtspfleger):
The officer is “required to participate actively in drafting the grounds for the remedy, to work towards an appropriate formulation of and grounds for the requests made, and to assume responsibility for the resulting record.”
And whether subsequent restoration of the previous procedural position (Wiedereinsetzung) remedies the violation:
“The fact that a failure or refusal to bring a prisoner before the registry official may remain without consequences afterwards, because a sentenced prisoner … will subsequently have to be granted restoration of the previous procedural position …, does not in principle diminish the weight of a violation of rights.“
Final sentence of the reasons:
“The Senate finally notes that, in view of the outlined legal standard, Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering correctly decided henceforth to grant requested escorted visits to the registry official ‘immediately’ and ‘unconditionally’.“
The appeal on points of law was nevertheless rejected as inadmissible with costs. Decisive reasons:
Mootness through the passage of time. The requested production within a one-week period had become moot upon expiry of that period; the duty to decide had become moot along with it.
No interest in a declaration — risk of recurrence. It had not been explained why future requests would not be decided; the phrases “no changed decision-making standard” and “new time limits at any time” were insufficient. The fact that I myself submitted that an escorted visit had been “offered” to me on 11.08.2025 is expressly used adversely.
No serious interference with fundamental rights. The complaint alleging violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrüge) under § 356a StPO may also be submitted in writing; it had not been explained why written submission would have been unreasonable. Then comes the sentence I address below:
“On the contrary, the grounds for the appeal on points of law drafted by the complainant himself in this case — admittedly inadmissible here — indicate that he considers himself quite capable of providing grounds for remedies himself.”
Oral decisions: “The Senate finally points out that an oral decision would by no means be inadmissible from the outset.”
The second request — to decide future requests within three working days — is said not to concern a specific measure within § 109 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StVollzG and to be inadmissible also as a preventive request for an injunction.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This order is the central subject of my constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026. In my view, the Senate overlooks three decisive circumstances: the one-off UKB access of 11.08.2025 occurred only after a hunger strike and coordination between the JVA and the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz); the JVA itself called this access “one-off”; and the subsequent sentence plan of 17.04.2026 continues to characterise hunger strikes as a “risk of misuse”. In my view, the risk of recurrence denied by the Senate is thus structurally confirmed, not dispelled. For details, see the “Constitutional complaint” tab on chronology no. 166.
Document source
Annex 142_F2 — Kammergericht order of 12.06.2026, certified copy: Google Drive
Certified copy (original): Anlage_142_F2_Beglaubigte Abschrift.pdf