Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht): notice of missing documents for the second constitutional complaint, deadline 25.09.2026
By letter of 07.09.2026, Az. AR 6264/26, handled by Lanz, the Federal Constitutional Court raises concerns about the admissibility of my second constitutional complaint (01./02.09.2026, against the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) orders of 18.08.2026 and the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) order of 24.06.2026). In particular, the submission to the Kammergericht lodging the immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) had not been provided, although it would probably be necessary for understanding the matter; the other documents listed in the annex schedule had likewise not been enclosed. As a precaution, the letter points out that supplements after expiry of the one-month time limit under § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG generally can no longer be taken into account and that, so far, the matter has not been submitted for a judicial decision: the proceedings are recorded in the General Register (Allgemeines Register), rather than the register of proceedings (Verfahrensregister).
According to the postmark, the letter was franked on 17.09.2026, ten days after the date stated in the letter. I received it on 21.09.2026 — four days before the deadline of 25.09.2026.
What the notice correctly identifies — and what remains open
The notice is substantively correct: the appeal submission to the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) (Annex 140_F2, public since July 2026, see Chronology No. 162) was indeed not listed as a separate annex in the constitutional complaint’s annex schedule, and the constitutional complaint itself had requested precisely such a notice. The interval between drafting (07.09.), franking (17.09.) and receipt (21.09.) is striking, but is not substantiated: both the transmission to the Bundestag’s Human Rights Committee and the judicial setting aside of the video-call ban fall within that period (both on 11.09.2026). I do not know whether there is a connection; I do not assert one.
Source of the document
Annex 219_F2 — Federal Constitutional Court letter with envelope, 2 pages plus envelope, photographed and prepared.
219_F2 → · Constitutional complaint 197_F2 → · Transmission evidence 199_F2 → · Appeal submission to KG (Annex 140_F2) → · Dossier →