⚖ 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 · German Bundestag (Deutscher Bundestag) · petition E-208090 · submitted 31.08.2026
Annex 196_F2 — petition E-208090 to the German Bundestag
On 31.08.2026 I submitted a petition electronically to the German Bundestag’s Petitions Committee (Petitionsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages). It is registered under number E-208090. It was submitted via the online form; according to the Committee’s instructions, no signature or postal submission is required for this method.
Two requests:
1. Amend § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO so that the mandatory list of criminal provisions applied can no longer be added after the judgment becomes final and after the decision on the appeal on points of law (Revision).
2. Clarify how the German Bundestag ensures that exercising the rights of petition and expression towards it does not lead to disadvantages in prison.
The reasoning rests on three findings: the complete absence of the list of provisions in the judgment of 22.07.2024 and its addition on 30.07.2025 with a one-sentence explanation; the different composition of the chamber that delivered the judgment (Groß, Loewenthal, Frank) and the chamber that supplemented it (Groß, Loewenthal, Schlimm); and the blocking of video calls on 17.07.2026 after a video address to the Bundestag.
The petition expressly clarifies: No review of my proceedings is requested. The question is whether current law is sufficient to prevent such cases.
Two requests:
1. Amend § 260 Abs. 5 Satz 1 StPO so that the mandatory list of criminal provisions applied can no longer be added after the judgment becomes final and after the decision on the appeal on points of law (Revision).
2. Clarify how the German Bundestag ensures that exercising the rights of petition and expression towards it does not lead to disadvantages in prison.
The reasoning rests on three findings: the complete absence of the list of provisions in the judgment of 22.07.2024 and its addition on 30.07.2025 with a one-sentence explanation; the different composition of the chamber that delivered the judgment (Groß, Loewenthal, Frank) and the chamber that supplemented it (Groß, Loewenthal, Schlimm); and the blocking of video calls on 17.07.2026 after a video address to the Bundestag.
The petition expressly clarifies: No review of my proceedings is requested. The question is whether current law is sufficient to prevent such cases.
Why this petition was submitted electronically. The German Bundestag’s Petitions Committee (Petitionsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages) no longer has a fax line; its contact page lists only a postal address, telephone number and email address expressly not intended for petitions. From prison I cannot send it by post. The online form is therefore the only channel available to me — and E-208090 is the first petition whose receipt by the Bundestag is technically documented.
Context. The evidence for point 1 is the annotated judgment (pages 2 and 38) and the supplementary order of 30.07.2025 (Annex 65_F2). The evidence for point 2 is the prison (JVA)’s decision of 22.07.2026 (Annex 152_F2), together with Annex 146_F2. Conclusion of the legal proceedings: Annex 194_F2.
Status: submitted on 31.08.2026, number E-208090. No acknowledgement of receipt with a file reference has yet been received; it will be added here. According to the Committee’s instructions, supplementary documents should be submitted by post only after the file reference has been received.