Regional Court dismisses the application challenging the sentence and reintegration plan — documentation unread
By order of 31.07.2026, the 95th chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences at Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) dismissed my application of 28.04.2026 in proceedings 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz with costs and fixed the value of the matter at 1.000 euros. The order is signed by Regional Court Judge Raschke; the certified copy is dated 03.08.2026, and the handwritten receipt note records receipt on 11.08.2026.
On the formal objections: According to the court, no formal defects in the sentence and reintegration plan are apparent. The diagnostic assessment was completed on 17.04.2026, the plan is dated the same day and the conference on which it was based took place on 13.03.2026; the plan was drawn up “(still) in a timely manner”. On the absence of names, the court states that identifying the staff members involved by name is not necessary for validity, since they are “sufficiently identifiable by their functional designations”.
On open prison conditions and relaxations of the regime: The court endorses the prison’s assessment. It cites the case law of the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court), under which refusal of relaxations of the regime “cannot be based solely on inadequate work on the offence, continued denial of committing it or a lack of participation in treatment”, but considers it permissible to infer a high risk of reoffending from denial of the offence “in conjunction with other circumstances relevant to the prognosis”. According to the court, the prison based the refusal “not exclusively” on personal unsuitability, which lies “also — but not exclusively — in the strong focus on the ‘fight for one’s rights’ and the refusal to accept the conviction”.
On production of the files: According to the court, there was no reason to require the prison to release further documents; it had not been shown that I had previously made an unsuccessful request to it for access to the files.
On the documentation submitted: The chamber expressly records that it “did not scan or examine, and therefore did not use as a basis for its decision” the documentation of my actions to obtain legal protection that I offered via a QR code. In the chamber’s view, the details were not relevant to the decision under § 109 StVollzG.
Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I), 95th chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences, case reference 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz. Order of 31 July 2026, signed Raschke, Regional Court Judge. Certified copy of 03.08.2026, formally served on 11.08.2026. The scan has been complete since 14.08.2026 (page 6 was previously missing).
On the standard of judicial review:
“Accordingly, the courts must confine their examination to whether the prison authority proceeded on the basis of accurately and fully established facts, whether it based its decision on a legal concept correctly interpreted in law, and whether it remained within the limits of its margin of assessment.”
On working through the offence — the court itself quotes the limitation:
“As regards work on the offence as an element of assessing the risk of misuse, it is established that refusal of relaxations of the regime cannot be based solely on inadequate work on the offence, continued denial of committing it or a lack of participation in treatment” (KG, order of 12.09.2017, 5 Ws 177/17 Vollz).
“However, there is no objection to the prison inferring from denial of the offence or inadequate work on the offence in conjunction with other circumstances relevant to the prognosis a (still) high risk of reoffending…”
On application to my case:
“The prison based this not exclusively on personal unsuitability, which lies also — but not exclusively — in the strong focus on the ‘fight for one’s rights’ and the refusal to accept the conviction.”
“The respondent need not base its prognosis on a specific offence against specific individuals or specific preparations for escape, especially since these may also arise from the situations themselves, which ultimately cannot be predicted in detail.”
On the names of staff members:
“Identifying by name the staff acting for the respondent is also unnecessary for the validity of the VEP. They are sufficiently identifiable by their functional designations.”
On the documentation submitted — the passage that matters to me:
“…the chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences did not scan or examine this documentation and therefore did not use it as a basis for its decision. Apart from the fact that the documents had already been submitted in an unsuitable format, the chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences also saw no reason to request the documents offered in writing or even as videos, as they apparently … concern documentation of legal action against the underlying conviction. … The details in the form of the documentation offered were not relevant to the decision to be taken here under § 109 StVollzG.”
On access to the files:
“…nor has it been shown that the applicant made an unsuccessful request to the respondent for access to the files, although this would itself be a prerequisite for the admissibility of such an application.”
The order reproduces substantial parts of the sentence and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026 (Annex 115_F2) verbatim. The following passages are taken from that reproduction.
On confinement under closed prison conditions:
“The risk of misuse arises from the current strong focus on the fight against the German justice system, which entirely determines Mr B.’s experience and actions even two years after conviction.”
“After a transfer to open prison conditions, he wishes immediately to continue his fight against certain individuals in the German justice system and organise further protests. Although Mr B. insists that he always intends to act within the law in doing so, it is found that there is a risk that … offences involving threats, stalking or insult may occur.”
“He is convinced that the intelligence service is observing him and that the justice system deliberately restricts his rights and deliberately boycotts fair proceedings.”
“Mr B. reacts with resistance to routine recommendations, such as continuing his work assignment.”
On relaxations of the regime:
“Prerequisites for relaxations of the regime are an ability to keep agreements, discernible participation in achieving the aim of the sentence, demonstrable work on his offences, and no reports of misconduct.“
On the release prognosis — section 12 of the plan:
“Factors that are favourable in principle and should be taken into account are his existing level of education, a pronounced drive to achieve, and existing family ties, especially to his son. … Social contacts do exist, but have only a limited protective effect because they seem in part to be functionally embedded in the dynamics of the conflict.”
On the reasons given for refusing to disclose names:
“In addition, the applicant reportedly specifically threatened during the diagnostic assessment to publish the staff members’ real names.”
And this factual assertion by the prison:
“In the course of the underlying offence here, he selects a residential and work location of a Russian intelligence service and also published the associated names on the internet, as a result of which third parties subsequently attacked the premises.“
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
This is the decision on my application of 28.04.2026 — issued after more than three months during which the written statements had already been exchanged in full. Its substance is carefully structured and it identifies the correct legal standard. For precisely that reason, I find four points noteworthy.
First: the court confirms “fully established facts” while stating that it did not examine my documents. The standard quoted by the order itself requires examination of whether the prison proceeded on the basis of accurately and fully established facts. The central negative finding is that my actions are entirely determined by a “fight against the German justice system”. I offered documentation showing what this “fight” actually consists of: legal remedies, requests for access to files, statements recorded in a court protocol, constitutional complaints and submissions to parliament. In my view, it is impossible to establish whether an assessment is accurate without examining what is being assessed.
Second: the asymmetry. By contrast, the prison’s assertion that I published names on the internet and thereby prompted third parties to attack the building was accepted without examination. This is not an assessment but a factual assertion of considerable weight — and it does not appear in that form in the judgment of 22.07.2024. My documents remained unread; the other side’s documents became the basis of the decision.
Third: the legal proposition quoted and its application. The order expressly states that refusal may not be based solely on denial of the offence and finds that the prison relied on this “not exclusively”. When the individual reasons are placed side by side — lack of work on the offence, lack of willingness to participate in treatment, lack of self-reflection, the “fight for one’s rights”, the experience of injustice and “resistance” to recommendations — they all, in my assessment, lead back to the same circumstance: that I do not accept the conviction. Whether this amounts to “other circumstances relevant to the prognosis” within the meaning of the quoted case law, or whether the same circumstance is being named repeatedly, is the question I wish to put before the court hearing the appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde).
Fourth: two statements in the plan that negate each other. Among the prerequisites for relaxations of the regime, the plan lists no reports of misconduct. According to the same plan, there have been no reports of misconduct during my sentence — not a single disciplinary measure in three and a half years of imprisonment. The plan also records in section 12 that family ties exist, especially to my son, and that social contacts are present. Precisely these social ties are denied elsewhere.
A citation error that I record without reading more into it: The order cites a decision of the Kammergericht “of 19.11.2018 — 5 Ws 193/19 Vollz”. An order from 2018 cannot have a case reference from the year 2019; the case reference is 5 Ws 193/18 Vollz. This is a typographical error and nothing more — the cited decision exists and the legal propositions reproduced are correct. I mention it only because I record on this page every discrepancy I notice, including those that do not benefit me.
An appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) under §§ 116 et seq. StVollzG is available against this order; the time limit is one month from service. The grounds may be submitted only through a lawyer or recorded at the court’s applications office (Rechtsantragsstelle) — precisely the route whose accessibility has been disputed since 2025. See Dossier on access to the Urkundsbeamter — the court registry officer authorised to record applications.
Document provenance
Annex 157_F2 — order of Landgericht Berlin I of 31.07.2026, certified copy of 03.08.2026 (complete version since 14.08.2026): Google Drive
Annotated versions of the underlying documents: Annex 115_F2 · the underlying diagnostic assessment: Annex 137_F2