⚖ 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 5 · JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility) · 24.07.2026 · File reference MBQ-327/25/7
Annex 13_F5 — workplace transfer and pay grade: the prison confirms the reported threat situation
Reply from JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility) to my submission of 21.07.2026 opposing the transfer from workshop 2 to workshop 3 and what I believed to be a reduction in pay grade. The result in two sentences: The transfer remains in place. There was never any reduction — I continue to receive full pay at pay grade 5.
1. The prison officially confirms that I reported a serious threat situation. The letter records that, during an extensive opportunity to be heard (Anhörung) on 15.07.2026, I described to my group management a serious threat situation that I considered to exist from another prisoner working immediately near me in workshop 2. The transfer was said to have been imperative under the duty of care and for preventive protection against danger, and to have taken place exclusively for my own protection.
2. The prison expressly refrained from reducing the pay grade. Under the main contractor’s rules (steep GmbH), work in the Bucher Retoure area of workshop 3 ordinarily entails pay grade 4 (B). Since my transfer was neither a disciplinary measure nor due to inadequate work performance, the conditions for a detrimental change affecting pay were absent. A reduction was therefore expressly waived.
I note that the prison decided correctly and in my favour here. I acknowledge that and present it here as evidence, rather than as a complaint.
1. The prison officially confirms that I reported a serious threat situation. The letter records that, during an extensive opportunity to be heard (Anhörung) on 15.07.2026, I described to my group management a serious threat situation that I considered to exist from another prisoner working immediately near me in workshop 2. The transfer was said to have been imperative under the duty of care and for preventive protection against danger, and to have taken place exclusively for my own protection.
2. The prison expressly refrained from reducing the pay grade. Under the main contractor’s rules (steep GmbH), work in the Bucher Retoure area of workshop 3 ordinarily entails pay grade 4 (B). Since my transfer was neither a disciplinary measure nor due to inadequate work performance, the conditions for a detrimental change affecting pay were absent. A reduction was therefore expressly waived.
I note that the prison decided correctly and in my favour here. I acknowledge that and present it here as evidence, rather than as a complaint.
Context. Chronologically, this letter of 24.07.2026 is the earlier of the two documents; the assessment of camera recordings of 21.08.2026 (Annex 14_F5), signed by the same officer, followed just under four weeks later. Both are instances in which JVA Heidering examined my information and decided in my favour.
This raises a question I cannot answer. The transfer on 21.07.2026 served to protect me from another prisoner in workshop 2. Two weeks later, on 05.08.2026, the confrontation involving a death threat and antisemitic insults occurred in workshop 3, documented in chronology entry No. 16 — involving a person concerning whom, according to Chronology No. 15, a prior history in work unit 3 already existed between August 2025 and January 2026. I do not claim that the prison knew of this. I note that the protective measure led to an environment with a documented prior history, and that it remains unclear whether this history was examined before the transfer.
Subsequent event: my renewed submission of 27.07.2026 (Annex 9_F5).
This raises a question I cannot answer. The transfer on 21.07.2026 served to protect me from another prisoner in workshop 2. Two weeks later, on 05.08.2026, the confrontation involving a death threat and antisemitic insults occurred in workshop 3, documented in chronology entry No. 16 — involving a person concerning whom, according to Chronology No. 15, a prior history in work unit 3 already existed between August 2025 and January 2026. I do not claim that the prison knew of this. I note that the protective measure led to an environment with a documented prior history, and that it remains unclear whether this history was examined before the transfer.
Subsequent event: my renewed submission of 27.07.2026 (Annex 9_F5).
Source of the information: the chronology of case 2 maintained by Dmitry Bagrash. This page summarises the material content and does not reproduce the document in full. Assessments are identified as such and do not replace a judicial finding.