Final written representations on the video call ban — and the question of the rule I am alleged to have broken
On 14.08.2026 at 02:30, I faxed my final written representations in proceedings 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz to Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) — seven pages, transmission report “OK”, fax ID 17216551 (transmission report).
Subject: the statement of JVA Heidering of 28.07.2026 (Annex 158_F2) and the decision of 22.07.2026 (Annex 152_F2), which has now been handed over and bans my video calls until 16.10.2026.
Amended applications: setting aside the decision and immediately restoring access; alternatively, a declaration of unlawfulness under § 115 para. 3 StVollzG if the measure ceases to have effect through expiry; suspension of enforcement under § 114 para. 2 StVollzG. After receiving the written decision, I declared that the applications for it to be handed over had ceased to require a decision on the merits (Erledigung) — expressly without withdrawing them.
The principal objection is this: the prison describes my use as “misuse” but identifies no rule that was in force on 02.06.2026 and had previously been communicated to me. The decision itself records that, when given an opportunity to comment (Anhörung), I stated that I had not known of such a ban; the prison provides no evidence to the contrary.
At the same time, I published an open statement of the same date (Annex 160_F2). Both documents were sent together.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
These written representations narrow the dispute to a single question that anyone can check: Which specific rule, previously communicated to me, did I break on 02.06.2026?
Until that question is answered, even the initial basis for retrospectively treating my behaviour as “misuse” is missing. Only then would the question arise at all whether a three-month total ban was proportionate — and I expressly raise that question only in the alternative, without thereby admitting a breach of any rule.
I consider two points significant beyond my own case. First, retroactivity: an authority may clarify rules of use for the future. But it cannot formulate a previously uncommunicated restriction after an event and judge past conduct by it. Second, the reason for the measure: the decision expressly links the ban to my public video statement, my channel and my “self-presentation in public”. Public expression is therefore the direct reason for the sanction rather than its background. I work as a journalist; there is no ban on practising my profession.
On the information route through the Senate administration, I expressly state in my written representations: I do not claim that the Senate administration ordered the ban. I request clarification of when, by whom and with what accompanying note the information reached the prison management. Annex 84_F2 shows that such communication is not hypothetical: there, the prison itself documents the development of a “common line” with the Senate administration.
Finally, I suggested obtaining anonymised comparable cases. To my knowledge, I am the only prisoner in this institution on whom a three-month ban has been imposed because of a publication. If that is incorrect, information from the files can disprove it.
On the pattern: since the beginning of 2026, I have sent an open statement alongside every legal remedy. The reason is simple — in these proceedings it has repeatedly been disputed whether documents arrived. What has been published cannot disappear.
Annotated version
This incident is annotated in its wording on a separate page, together with the three other documents concerning the video-call restriction: Blocking video calls — four documents
Document provenance
Annex 159_F2 — final written representations of 14.08.2026: Google Drive
Annex 160_F2 — open statement of 14.08.2026: Google Drive
Transmission report (7 pages, 02:30, transmission OK): Google Drive
Reference documents: Annex 158_F2 · Annex 152_F2 · Annex 115_F2 · Annex 137_F2