Home › Chronology archive › The struggle for access to court › No. 166
Access to court 10.07.2026

Lodging the constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and publication of the open statement

On 10.07.2026 I lodged, under § 90 BVerfGG, a against the order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht Berlin) of 12.06.2026 (Az. 5 Ws 17/26) and against the underlying orders of the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) in proceedings 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz. The complaint concerns, in particular, the denial or delayed granting of access to the registry officer and the resulting impairment of effective legal protection. It alleges violations of Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG and Art. 2 Abs. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG.

At the same time I published an open statement on the constitutional complaint. It documents the significance of the order beyond my individual case and addresses journalists, members of the German Bundestag, the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee and the public. The open statement explains, in particular, the causal chain of denied legal protection, hunger strike and subsequent negative assessment of that protest in prison, documented, among other records, in the sentence and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026 and in the order of LG Berlin I of 24.06.2026 refusing release on probation for the remainder of the sentence.

Filing and forwarding are documented by fax transmission reports. The report for the fax to the Federal Constitutional Court (FAX-ID 17006935) records transmission on 10.07.2026 at 03:28 of 98 pages to fax number +49 721 9101-382, with the status “Transmission: OK”.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLAINT under § 90 BVerfGG

Heidering prison (JVA Heidering) / Großbeeren, 10 July 2026 — To the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), Schlossbezirk 3, 76131 Karlsruhe (by fax: +49 721 9101-382)

I. Subject of the constitutional complaint

The complainant challenges the following decisions:

  1. Order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court — 5th Criminal Senate — of 12.06.2026, Az. 5 Ws 17/26, received on 02.07.2026 at 17:35
  2. Order of the Berlin Regional Court I — 99th Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences — of 10.12.2025, Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz
  3. Order of the Berlin Regional Court I — 99th Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences — of 04.11.2025, Az. 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz

Supplementary note: Against the order of the Berlin Regional Court I of 24.06.2026 (Az. 589f StVK 86/26 — refusal of release on probation for the remainder of the sentence) the complainant, on the day of service itself — 01.07.2026 at 23:49 — lodged an immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) by fax within the time limit. Those proceedings are still pending.

Fundamental rights violated: Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (effective legal protection), Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (right to be heard), Art. 2 Abs. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG (general right of personality)

II. Admissibility

1. Exhaustion of judicial remedies (§ 90 Abs. 2 S. 1 BVerfGG)

The complainant has exhausted all remedies available to him concerning the challenged decisions:

  • 11.06.2025: request to JVA Heidering to be brought before the (UKB) → oral refusal without a written decision
  • 17.09.2025: request for a judicial decision under § 109 StVollzG and request for an interim order under § 114 StVollzG to LG Berlin I
  • 04.11.2025: LG Berlin I rejects the request for an interim order as inadmissible
  • 10.12.2025: LG Berlin I rejects the requests on the main matter
  • 13.01.2026: lodging the appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) to be recorded by Rechtspflegerin Böhme (a judicial officer exercising independent procedural functions) at AG Zossen (Zossen Local Court)
  • 12.06.2026: KG Berlin rejects the appeal on points of law as inadmissible

2. Time limit for the complaint (§ 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG): The KG Berlin order of 12.06.2026 was served on the complainant on 02.07.2026 at 17:35. The one-month period runs until 03.08.2026 (§ 188 Abs. 2 BGB, since 02.08.2026 is a Sunday). The constitutional complaint is lodged within the time limit.

III. Facts

10.06.2025: The complainant is transferred without prior notice from JVA Moabit to JVA Heidering. All personal belongings, including all writing materials, remain at JVA Moabit. On the same day the complainant urgently asks group leader Dahms for a ballpoint pen to submit requests immediately to the BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court) and EGMR (European Court of Human Rights). The request is refused: the next opportunity to shop will only be on 28.06.2025.

11.06.2025, 08:20: The written request to be brought before the UKB is handed to the unit officer.

13.06.2025: The written request for writing materials is refused orally. Ms Dahms states orally that the JVA has decided the time limit for complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrügen) has expired; no written decision is issued. (see Chronology No. 85, No. 86)

19.06.2025: The BGH issues orders rejecting the complainant’s complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard. Received: 17.07.2025.

04.08.2025: Start of a hunger strike as the last remaining means of pressure against the continuing denial of access.

11.08.2025: For the first time — after coordination between the JVA and the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz), and in connection with the hunger strike — “exceptional” one-off access to the UKB is offered. This occurs 54 days after receipt of the BGH decision; all time limits have expired by then. (see Chronology No. 126)

04.11.2025: LG Berlin I rejects the request for an interim order without first giving the complainant access to the JVA statement of 26.09.2025. The envelope of 08.10.2025 contained no annexes — no postmark, no postage marking. The complainant receives the statement only on 10.11.2025, together with the refusal order.

10.12.2025: LG Berlin I also rejects the request on the main matter.

13.01.2026: Appeal on points of law recorded by Rechtspflegerin Böhme, AG Zossen. The judicial officer independently formulates the requests and grounds and assumes responsibility by signing them. (see Chronology No. 133)

17.04.2026: Sentence and reintegration plan: hunger strikes and written complaints are characterised as “reactant behaviour” and a “risk of abuse”, forming the basis for refusal of relaxations of prison conditions and an adverse prognosis of law-abiding behaviour.

12.06.2026: KG Berlin rejects the appeal on points of law as inadmissible (Az. 5 Ws 17/26).

24.06.2026: LG Berlin I refuses release on probation for the remainder of the sentence (Az. 589f StVK 86/26): hunger strikes, publication of documents and the stated intention to continue political activities are expressly used as the basis for an adverse prognosis of law-abiding behaviour.

01.07.2026, 23:49: Immediate complaint against the order of 24.06.2026 lodged by fax within the time limit, with an open statement published at the same time.

02.07.2026, 17:35: The complainant receives the KG Berlin order of 12.06.2026.

IV. Constitutional assessment

1. Violation of Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG — Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG guarantees more than the formal possibility of applying to a court; it requires genuinely effective legal protection (BVerfG, order of 20.07.2020 — 2 BvR 2214/19; order of 22.09.2017 — 2 BvR 455/17; in prison: BVerfG, order of 20.04.2007 — 2 BvR 203/07, BVerfGK 11, 54).

(a) Finding on personally drafted written submissions contrary to the case file: The Kammergericht denies a serious violation of fundamental rights on the ground that the complainant drafted his own appeal grounds and was therefore capable of lodging remedies in writing. This finding is contrary to the case file: the declarations in lieu of oath of 19. and 20.06.2025 establish that the complainant physically lacked access to writing materials on the day of transfer and in the critical days immediately afterwards (BVerfG, non-acceptance order of 01.04.2020 — 2 BvR 1455/19; BGH, order of 19.09.2011 — XII ZB 31/01).

(b) Contradiction between the reasons and the case file: The Kammergericht acknowledges that the record by Rechtspflegerin Böhme contains an independently formulated request and grounds and that she assumed responsibility by signing it, a situation satisfying the formal requirements under BGH case law (BGH, order of 30.03.2022 — 2 StR 64/21). Nevertheless, this contradiction is held against the complainant.

(c) Erroneous denial of a risk of recurrence: The Kammergericht disregards the fact that UKB access on 11.08.2025 occurred only after a hunger strike and coordination between the JVA and the Senate Department, was described by the JVA itself as “one-off”, and that the sentence plan continues to characterise hunger strikes as a “risk of abuse”; the risk of recurrence is therefore structurally confirmed rather than eliminated.

(d) Failure to consider irreparable damage: UKB access was first offered 54 days after receipt of the BGH decision, at a time when all time limits for remedies had already expired (see BVerfG, 2 BvR 2214/19; KG Berlin, order of 07.02.2022 — 5 Ws 285/21 Vollz).

(e) Criminalisation of lawful measures of legal protection: The causal chain — unlawful denial of access → hunger strike as a means of pressure → characterisation as a “risk of abuse” → adverse prognosis of law-abiding behaviour → refusal of release on probation for the remainder of the sentence — is incompatible with the rule of law (BVerfG, order of 08.11.2006 — 2 BvR 578/02 et al., BVerfGE 117, 71-126).

2. Violation of Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG: The order of 04.11.2025 was made without the complainant first receiving the JVA statement of 26.09.2025; a proper response was practically impossible (BVerfG, order of 16.05.2018 — 2 BvR 635/17; order of 06.02.2020 — 2 BvR 1719/19).

3. Coordinated denial of access as a structural fundamental-rights problem: The documented coordination between the JVA and the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz) establishes that the refusal was the result of coordination between authorities, rather than a decision in an individual case.

V. Requests

  1. Set aside the orders of the Berlin Higher Regional Court of 12.06.2026 (Az. 5 Ws 17/26) and of the Berlin Regional Court I of 10.12.2025 and 04.11.2025.
  2. Find that JVA Heidering’s denial of access to the registry officer from 10.06.2025 violated the complainant’s fundamental rights under Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG and Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG.
  3. Alternatively, remit the matter to the Berlin Higher Regional Court for a fresh decision.

VI. List of annexes (extract)

Annex 1 (142_F2): KG Berlin order 12.06.2026 · Annex 2 (95_F2): AG Zossen record 13.01.2026 · Annex 3 (115_F2): Sentence and reintegration plan · Annex 4 (139_F2): LG Berlin I order 24.06.2026 · Annex 5 (140_F2): Transmission report for the immediate complaint · Annex 7/8 (88_F2/87_F2): LG Berlin I order 10.12.2025 (complaint alleging violation of the right to be heard) / (§ 109 StVollzG) · Annex 9 (84_F2): JVA statement / coordination with the Senate Department · Annex 10 (83_F2): JVA statement MTAL 1-AR1024 · Annex 16/17 (44_F2/43_F2): Declaration in lieu of oath 20.06.2025 / 19.06.2025

Public statement on the constitutional complaint

“How the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht Berlin) declared access to justice resolved — and thereby redefined legal protection in Germany” — JVA Heidering / Großbeeren, 10 July 2026

Addressed to: members of the German Bundestag (Legal Affairs, Internal Affairs and Human Rights Committees) · journalists (BILD, Spiegel, taz, rbb, ZDF, NDR, DW, Correctiv, Tagesspiegel) · EGMR (European Court of Human Rights) · UN Human Rights Committee

I. What this concerns

On 2 June 2026 I recorded a public video statement from my prison cell and addressed it to members of the Bundestag and the public. In it, publicly and using my own name, I accused the presiding judge at the Berlin Regional Court, Mr , of falsifying the (video statement: youtube.com/watch?v=PMXZ9zm35MI).

I did not do this lightly. I did it because the domestic route to legal protection — appeal on points of law (Revision), complaint alleging violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrüge), judicial decision under § 109 StVollzG, appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) — was systematically blocked. And because the Berlin Higher Regional Court gave that obstruction its legal approval in its order of 12.06.2026.

II. What the Kammergericht decided — and what it means

On 10.06.2025 I was transferred without prior notice from JVA Moabit to JVA Heidering. All my personal belongings, including all writing materials, remained in Moabit. I had to lodge remedies subject to time limits. Those time limits were running. The JVA denied me access to the registry officer orally, without a written decision, reasons or notice of remedies.

On 19.06.2025, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued the orders rejecting my complaints alleging violation of the right to be heard, remedies that I had never been able to submit in full. Only on 11.08.2025 — 54 days later, after a hunger strike — was I first offered “exceptional” access. At a time when all time limits had already expired.

The result: the order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court of 12.06.2026 found that my entitlement to access to the registry officer had become “moot”. A risk of recurrence was denied. A serious interference with fundamental rights was denied.

III. What this order means for German law

A prison authority may deny a prisoner access to the registry officer. It need not issue a written decision or give notice of remedies. It may wait until all time limits have expired, then grant access once and declare the matter “moot”. The Berlin Higher Regional Court did not object to this practice but found it lawful. This is not an individual case; it is a precedent. Any prison authority in Germany can rely on it in future.

IV. The coordinated obstruction

JVA Heidering did not decide my UKB request on its own. It coordinated with the Berlin Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz Berlin) and developed a “common line”, as follows from the JVA’s own words in its statement to the court.

V. What happened afterwards: legal protection as a ground for punishment

The sentence and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit of 17.04.2026 characterises my hunger strike as “reactant behaviour” and a “risk of abuse”. The Berlin Regional Court I refused my early release on 24.06.2026 — the reasons expressly rely on my hunger strikes and my intention to continue political activities.

The causal chain is complete: JVA denies access → prisoner begins a hunger strike → hunger strike characterised as abuse → adverse prognosis of law-abiding behaviour → no release. Anyone who protests against an unlawful measure punishes themselves.

VI. What I demand

  • That the Federal Constitutional Court find that denial of access to the registry officer from 10.06.2025 violated my fundamental right under Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
  • That the Federal Constitutional Court clarify that a prison authority may not itself decide on the admissibility of remedies.
  • That the Federal Constitutional Court direct the Berlin Higher Regional Court to decide the matter afresh.

VII. To the public — questions for journalists

  1. How did the Berlin Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz Berlin) document its coordination with JVA Heidering internally, and who made this decision?
  2. Has the Berlin Higher Regional Court decided comparable cases differently, or is the order of 12.06.2026 the first of its kind?
  3. What consequences does the Berlin Senate Department for Justice draw from the finding that a prison officer decided on his own authority on the admissibility of remedies?
  4. On what legal basis may a prison authority use a prisoner’s lawful protest as an indicator of risk?
  5. Why was no decision made on my request to admit the press to the hearing of 24.06.2026?

Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment

This constitutional complaint pursued the domestic constitutional judicial remedy against order 5 Ws 17/26 within the time limit. The accompanying public documentation is intended to ensure that the alleged structural denial of effective legal protection and its consequences can be examined by parliamentarians, journalists and human rights bodies. The fax reports establish the time, volume and successful technical transmission of the submitted records.

Source of the document

Constitutional complaint (original): Anlage_144_F2_Verfassungsbeschwerde_Bagrash_10_07_2026.pdf

Open statement (original): Anlage_145_F2_Open_Statement_Verfassungsbeschwerde_Bagrash_10_07_2026.pdf

Fax transmission report: Anlage_144_145_f2_faxprotocol.pdf

Confirmation of dispatch: Fax-ID 17006935, sent on 10.07.2026 at 03:28 to +49 721 9101-382 (Federal Constitutional Court — Bundesverfassungsgericht), 98 pages, status “Transmission: OK”.

← 08.07.2026 — Expanded submission to the State Office (Landesamt) for To the chronology overview 17.07.2026 — Blocking of video calls →