⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin
Political prisoner, application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Case 2 · 30.03.2026 · To the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz) · 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz
Annex 105_F2 — final demand under substantive administrative supervision (Fachaufsicht) before constitutional-court and international action
Of the four letters, this is addressed to the highest level. It places the individual episode in the overall picture documented since 2025: refused or delayed recording of applications, missing written decisions and acknowledgements of receipt, problematic mail handling, and failure to forward or misdirection of remedies subject to time limits.
Four questions, a 72-hour time limit: what measures of substantive administrative supervision are being taken to establish the facts; whether the Senate Department was already involved or will now be involved; what case reference will be assigned; and which body is responsible for a response in proper legal form.
The question of influence — carefully worded. The letter expresses a suspicion that the obstruction of legal protection may not merely result from individual failures, but may be institutionally covered or at least tolerated. If influence within the justice administration or relating to the prosecution service should play a role, it asks for clarification and disclosure of the communication channels. It does not assert that such influence occurred.
Announced consequences if no substantive response is received: urgent constitutional-court protection and international individual-application and complaint mechanisms, particularly the competent bodies of the United Nations and the Council of Europe.
Four questions, a 72-hour time limit: what measures of substantive administrative supervision are being taken to establish the facts; whether the Senate Department was already involved or will now be involved; what case reference will be assigned; and which body is responsible for a response in proper legal form.
The question of influence — carefully worded. The letter expresses a suspicion that the obstruction of legal protection may not merely result from individual failures, but may be institutionally covered or at least tolerated. If influence within the justice administration or relating to the prosecution service should play a role, it asks for clarification and disclosure of the communication channels. It does not assert that such influence occurred.
Announced consequences if no substantive response is received: urgent constitutional-court protection and international individual-application and complaint mechanisms, particularly the competent bodies of the United Nations and the Council of Europe.
Four letters on one day — four levels. On 30.03.2026, I raised the same matter with four bodies at the same time:
102_F2 to the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) as the court hearing appeals on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde),
103_F2 to the president of Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I),
104_F2 to the president of the Kammergericht, and
105_F2 to the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz). Each sets a 72-hour time limit. The subject is always the same: the appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) lodged on the record at Zossen Local Court (Amtsgericht Zossen) on 13.01.2026 (case reference 131 AR 1/26) against the order of LG Berlin I of 10.12.2025 in proceedings 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz, and the absence of evidence that it was ever forwarded to the Kammergericht.
Copies of all four letters were also sent to the Berlin House of Representatives (Abgeordnetenhaus von Berlin) — to its president (fax 030 2325-1048), the Petitions Committee (030 2325-1478) and the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs (030 2325-1318). The matter has thus been before parliament since March 2026.
Correction of 02.09.2026: The fax number for the president of the House of Representatives given here — (030) 2325-1048 — is incorrect. The correct number is (030) 2325 1008. Transmissions to 1048 failed on 31.03.2026, 01.09.2026 and 02.09.2026; only the transmission to 1008 on 02.09.2026 at 18:29 succeeded. Receipt of the letters of 30.03.2026 by the president is therefore not established. This does not apply to the Petitions Committee (2325 1478) or the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs (2325 1318): their lines demonstrably work.
Copies of all four letters were also sent to the Berlin House of Representatives (Abgeordnetenhaus von Berlin) — to its president (fax 030 2325-1048), the Petitions Committee (030 2325-1478) and the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs (030 2325-1318). The matter has thus been before parliament since March 2026.
Correction of 02.09.2026: The fax number for the president of the House of Representatives given here — (030) 2325-1048 — is incorrect. The correct number is (030) 2325 1008. Transmissions to 1048 failed on 31.03.2026, 01.09.2026 and 02.09.2026; only the transmission to 1008 on 02.09.2026 at 18:29 succeeded. Receipt of the letters of 30.03.2026 by the president is therefore not established. This does not apply to the Petitions Committee (2325 1478) or the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs (2325 1318): their lines demonstrably work.
Context. The episode recurs five months later in a different form: in August 2026, after proven delivery on 19.08.2026, the draft of the next appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) remained at the prison without being handed to me for five days (Annex 174_F2). I do not assert a connection — I note that in both cases a remedy subject to a time limit became stuck in the administrative process and in both cases only my own escalation prompted movement.
The signed original can be viewed in full above. This page summarises it and does not replace it.