⚖ 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) · Az. AR 6264/26 · dated 07.09.2026, received 21.09.2026
Annex 219_F2 — letter from the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) concerning the constitutional complaint of 01./02.09.2026
Letter from the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), Az. AR 6264/26, case officer Lanz, dated 07.09.2026, received by me on 21.09.2026 (Deutsche Post franking: 17.09.2026). Reference: my constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026, transmitted by fax on 02.09.2026 (Annex 197_F2).
Core content: The court expresses concerns about admissibility because the submission to the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) concerning the immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) was not provided, although it would likely be required for understanding, and because the other documents listed in the annex schedule were not attached to the constitutional complaint. Precautionary notice: supplements to an insufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint generally cannot be considered after expiry of the one-month period under § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG. No judicial decision has yet been obtained — the matter is entered in the General Register (AR), not the Proceedings Register (BvR).
Core content: The court expresses concerns about admissibility because the submission to the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) concerning the immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) was not provided, although it would likely be required for understanding, and because the other documents listed in the annex schedule were not attached to the constitutional complaint. Precautionary notice: supplements to an insufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint generally cannot be considered after expiry of the one-month period under § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG. No judicial decision has yet been obtained — the matter is entered in the General Register (AR), not the Proceedings Register (BvR).
Fact. The identified missing document — the submission to the Kammergericht concerning the immediate complaint — is the immediate complaint of 01.07.2026 against the order of Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) of 24.06.2026, documented as Annex 140_F2 (chronology no. 162). It was indeed not listed as a separate annex in the annex schedule of the constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 — the court correctly identifies a gap here.
Provision. § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG (one-month period from service, here 25.08.2026 — deadline 25.09.2026); § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG (duty to substantiate, submission of the contested decisions and documents required for understanding).
Provision. § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG (one-month period from service, here 25.08.2026 — deadline 25.09.2026); § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG (duty to substantiate, submission of the contested decisions and documents required for understanding).
Counter-hypothesis. The court’s notice is substantively correct: the constitutional complaint itself (section A.3) expressly announced that the remaining annexes would be submitted “immediately upon request” and asked for a corresponding notice — precisely that notice is now given by the letter of 07.09.2026. The wording on compliance with the deadline after expiry of the one-month period is a standard formulation commonly used in the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)’s General Register, not text tailored to this case.
What is noteworthy but not established. Ten days elapsed between the date of the letter (07.09.2026) and its franking by Deutsche Post (17.09.2026); I received it on 21.09.2026 — four days before the deadline. Within those ten days fell both the dispatch of my documents to the Bundestag’s Human Rights Committee (Menschenrechtsausschuss des Bundestags) (09.–11.09.2026) and the lifting of the video-call ban by Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) (11.09.2026, Dossier). Whether the delayed posting is connected with these events or results from the registry’s internal processing is unknown to me and is not asserted here.
Response. A supplement providing Annex 140_F2 and referring to the other publicly accessible annexes has been prepared and will be transmitted via the same fax channel.