Political prisoner, complaint filed with the EGMR (European Court of Human Rights), facing deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) against refusal of early release
Signed on 01.09.2026, eight pages, directed against the order of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) of 18.08.2026 (2 Ws 111/26) and the order of the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) of 24.06.2026 (589f StVK 86/26).
Four violations of fundamental rights are alleged: Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (decision based on the note of the hearing, which was available to both courts and was never made available to me), Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (the unproven assumption becomes the reason not to examine it), Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG (hunger strikes against denied access to court, publications and political activity underpin the negative prognosis in themselves) and Art. 2 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG (freedom from self-incrimination).
Section A.3 demonstrates exhaustion of remedies in eight dated steps, from compelling preparation of the sentence plan on 16.01.2026 to the order of the Kammergericht.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
I examined two points and deliberately omitted them. The lack of a public hearing: the Kammergericht follows the prevailing view, and I do not pursue the point further. The single-judge composition: under § 78b Abs. 1 GVG a three-judge panel is required only in cases of life imprisonment, placement in an institution (Unterbringung) and preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) — the suspicion is not substantiated.
A constitutional complaint should contain not a single unexamined argument. One incorrect point makes the entire submission appear careless.
Document provenance
Annex 197_F2 — constitutional complaint, signed, eight pages with a list of annexes.