Political prisoner, complaint lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), threat of deportation. Unprecedented opposition from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →The prison replies to the court — and identifies refraining from publications as a less restrictive measure
Received on 04.09.2026. By a direction of 28.08.2026 (prepared on 01.09.2026, Judge Raschke), the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) forwards to me the respondent’s statement of 25.08.2026 in proceedings 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz — “please take note”. The statement comprises three pages and is signed by Lohmeier, Teilanstaltsleiter 1 komm. (acting head of a prison unit) (Annex 205_F2).
What the prison submits. It requests rejection of my application. It submits that removal of video calls is not a sanction for impermissible conduct; there is no statutory entitlement to video calls; journalistic activity remains possible for me, as shown by my having faxed the application to the Regional Court. Elsewhere the same use is described as “abusive” and as “self-presentation on the Internet”. It submits that the collective interest of prisoners in retaining video calls takes precedence over my individual interest.
The sentence at issue
On page 2, the prison states that at the hearing of 17.07.2026 I did not take the opportunity to refrain from this form of using video calls in future; rather, it says I announced that I intended to continue using this form of communication for my “publications that attract public attention” even after the restriction was lifted. From this it concludes that the least restrictive measure was chosen.
The sentence therefore means that a less restrictive measure would have been an option if I had declared that I would refrain from future publications.
Response of 08.09.2026 (Annex 209_F2) — eight points, transmitted to the 95th Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer). Attached is the payslip for August 2026: the prison’s own data contain the entry “Journalist” twice — under “Trained profession” and “Last occupation”, as at 01.09.2026.
Correction to my own account: an open question has been answered
I had asked for clarification of how the prison learned of my publication and had expressly not alleged any instruction from the Senate Department (Senatsverwaltung), but had treated it as an open question. The respondent now replies that there had been no email from the Senate Department to JVA Heidering on this matter; the prison itself had been an addressee of my press covering letter of 12.07.2026; coordination with the Senate Department had not taken place.
I accept this information. The question has therefore been answered and is no longer treated as open on this page (as at 08.09.2026). This clarifies a point for the proceedings: according to the prison’s own account, the sole trigger for the measure was a press communication — not an incident in prison, an objection or a report.
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
I make no allegation based on the prison requesting rejection of my application. It is the respondent and is entitled to argue its legal position; that is part of the proceedings.
What I challenge is something else. First, to date I have not been told of any rule, instruction or condition of use that I allegedly breached, yet my conduct is said to have been abusive. Second, the prison records me as a journalist in its own documents and describes the same activity as self-presentation in its written submission. Third, according to its own account, refraining from future publications would have led to a less restrictive measure.
The record of the hearing of 17.07.2026, on which the prison substantially relies, has not been made available to me. I suggested obtaining it. This is the second hearing record this year that is used against me and that I have not seen.
Sources of the documents
Annex 205_F2 — covering letter from the Regional Court of 28.08.2026 together with the JVA Heidering statement of 25.08.2026, four pages, received on 04.09.2026. Annex 206_F2 — payslip for August 2026. Annex 209_F2 — response of 08.09.2026.
205_F2 → · 206_F2 → · 209_F2 → · The four documents concerning the video-call ban