⚖ 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 · Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) · Art. 93 para. 1 no. 4a GG · signed 01.09.2026
Annex 197_F2 — constitutional complaint against the refusal of early release
Signed constitutional complaint under Art. 93 para. 1 no. 4a GG, §§ 90 et seq. BVerfGG. Eight pages, challenging two decisions:
• order of the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) of 18.08.2026, 2 Ws 111/26, served on 25.08.2026
• order of the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) of 24.06.2026, 589f StVK 86/26, judge Lechner
Four violations of fundamental rights are alleged:
Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG — Both decisions materially rely on the hearing note (Anhörungsvermerk) of 24.06.2026. Both courts had it, but it has never been made accessible to me. Added to this is the incomplete transmission of the prosecutorial statement, whose missing page I received only twenty days after the decision.
Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG — The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) considers an expert opinion unnecessary because suspension of the remainder of the sentence on probation was “ruled out from the outset”; it was ruled out because of an attributed characteristic for which no evidence is identified. The assumption becomes the reason not to examine it.
Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG — Hunger strikes against denied access to court, publication of my own documents and the announcement of continued political activity support the negative prognosis in themselves: “In this respect alone, a positive prognosis of lawful conduct is absent.”
Art. 2 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG — Freedom is made conditional on self-incrimination, although the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) itself concedes that denial of the offence cannot support a negative prognosis.
Section A.3 demonstrates exhaustion of judicial remedies (Rechtswegerschöpfung) in eight dated steps. Section D expressly states what is not sought.
• order of the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) of 18.08.2026, 2 Ws 111/26, served on 25.08.2026
• order of the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) of 24.06.2026, 589f StVK 86/26, judge Lechner
Four violations of fundamental rights are alleged:
Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG — Both decisions materially rely on the hearing note (Anhörungsvermerk) of 24.06.2026. Both courts had it, but it has never been made accessible to me. Added to this is the incomplete transmission of the prosecutorial statement, whose missing page I received only twenty days after the decision.
Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG — The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) considers an expert opinion unnecessary because suspension of the remainder of the sentence on probation was “ruled out from the outset”; it was ruled out because of an attributed characteristic for which no evidence is identified. The assumption becomes the reason not to examine it.
Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG — Hunger strikes against denied access to court, publication of my own documents and the announcement of continued political activity support the negative prognosis in themselves: “In this respect alone, a positive prognosis of lawful conduct is absent.”
Art. 2 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG — Freedom is made conditional on self-incrimination, although the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) itself concedes that denial of the offence cannot support a negative prognosis.
Section A.3 demonstrates exhaustion of judicial remedies (Rechtswegerschöpfung) in eight dated steps. Section D expressly states what is not sought.
Two points deliberately omitted from the complaint.
The hearing’s lack of public access. The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) follows the prevailing view: § 169 para. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in sentence-execution proceedings. I do not pursue this point.
The single-judge composition. The fact that the chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer) decided through a single female judge initially appeared worth examining. Under § 78b para. 1 GVG, however, a three-judge composition is required only for life imprisonment, institutional committal and preventive detention; otherwise one judge decides. The point has been examined and rejected.
The hearing’s lack of public access. The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) follows the prevailing view: § 169 para. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in sentence-execution proceedings. I do not pursue this point.
The single-judge composition. The fact that the chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer) decided through a single female judge initially appeared worth examining. Under § 78b para. 1 GVG, however, a three-judge composition is required only for life imprisonment, institutional committal and preventive detention; otherwise one judge decides. The point has been examined and rejected.
Connected account. The dossier for newsrooms: Constitutional complaint, September 2026. The full prognosis chain: The missing link. The earlier constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026: here.
Status: filed. The constitutional complaint was transmitted on 02.09.2026 at 17:16 by fax to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht; 0721 9101-382), 17 pages, transmission OK. The one-month period under § 93 para. 1 sentence 1 BVerfGG (until 25.09.2026) is thus met. Transmission evidence: Annex 199_F2. The file reference will be added here later.