Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference signifies an entry in the register of proceedings, nothing more) · second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 still without a case reference · no decision on the criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026; the presumption of innocence applies · Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz made on time on 09.09.2026 and recorded by the court registry officer (the matter) · the ban on video calls of 22.07.2026 was set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on the matter) · the criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner with StA Potsdam (Potsdam Public Prosecutor's Office) under 496 Js 34084/26 is being processed.
Political prisoner, application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Not the question of guilt — the question of whether legal remedies work
This page addresses members of the German Bundestag and the Berlin House of Representatives. It asks for no position on a conviction, but presents five episodes concerning administrative and procedural practice — and thus the sphere of parliamentary oversight.
Domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. On 18.08.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) against the refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). No further avenue of appeal is available.
What this means for elected representatives: the courts have decided. This has not answered the question of what the assessment underlying the deprivation of liberty actually rests on; it has merely placed it beyond further judicial determination. In detail: The chain of assessments.
Supporting evidence: Dossier on the constitutional complaint · Proof of transmission · Chronology archive
- Berlin House of Representatives — the connections
Eight dated stages, the BKA expert report cited in the judgment and the question of a parliamentary committee of inquiry. If you read only one of these pages, read this one. - Members of parliament — five findings ← You are here
The short version for elected representatives in the Bundestag and the Berlin House of Representatives: five episodes on whether legal avenues work, without addressing guilt. - Petitions Committee — the petition itself
The formal text: 30 findings, 11 requests, each accompanied by the provision of PetG Bln that grants the committee the relevant power. Ready to print.
Not the question of guilt — whether legal avenues work
No parliament can decide whether the conviction of 22.07.2024 is correct. That is not what this page concerns. It concerns something within representatives’ remit: whether the procedural avenues the law provides to a convicted person are accessible in practice.
The legislature provided that a prisoner without access to defence counsel may lodge a Revision (appeal on points of law) by having it recorded by the court registry (§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO). It provided that a complaint must be submitted to the next higher court within three days if the court receiving it does not grant relief (§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO). It provided for acknowledgement of incoming submissions (§ 37 StPO) and instructions on legal remedies in decisions (§ 35a StPO).
This case documents what happens when these four basic safeguards fail one after another — and that there is practically no remedy against this.
Five findings that extend beyond the individual case
1. The duty to submit a complaint to the reviewing court was declared merely a “should” provision (Sollvorschrift)
By order of 31.10.2025, the Kammergericht held that § 306 Abs. 2 StPO was a “should” provision (Sollvorschrift) without immediate procedural consequences. If the court of origin does not submit a complaint, this therefore has no consequences.
2. A judgment may be supplemented with the list of provisions applied after it has become final
373 days after pronouncement and 84 days after the decision on the Revision, the list under § 260 Abs. 5 StPO was added — as a correction of a clerical error, without instructions on legal remedies. The complaint against this was dismissed as inadmissible because the list was not part of the operative formula of the judgment.
3. Access to the court registry could only be secured by refusing food
Requests to have statements recorded were refused on 15.01., 24.02., 14.03. and 18.03.2025. An application of 11.06.2025 was not decided until 04.11.2025. I was actually brought before the registry on 11.08.2025 — on the eighth day of a hunger strike. No remedy against the refusal existed because no written decision was issued.
4. Oversight acts only once the prison has decided — and the prison does not decide
In a letter dated 05.05.2025, the Berlin Senate Department for Justice stated that it could examine the matter only once the prison management had reached a final decision. On 11.08.2025, the head of a prison unit stated that no written decision would be issued. For the person concerned, this is not a legal avenue but a circle.
5. Relaxation of prison conditions is tied to abandoning one’s legal position
The sentence and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026 justifies the refusal of open prison conditions by the “strong focus on the fight against the German justice system” and states that there is a risk of offences — “even if Mr B. insists that he intends always to act within the law”. The competent court endorsed this reasoning on 31.07.2026.
The video statement to members of parliament and the subsequent ban
On 12.07.2026, Dmitry Bagrash informed, among others, the press office of the Berlin Senate Department for Justice by email that he had filed a constitutional complaint; the message contained a link to a public video statement addressing members of parliament.
On 17.07.2026, he was told orally that his video calls were banned for three months. The written decision of 22.07.2026 expressly relies on that email and justifies the ban, among other things, by stating that the publication jeopardises rehabilitation because he “continues not to engage with the offence”.
The parliamentary avenue has been pursued — so far without a decision on the merits
- Petition to the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag; receipt acknowledged.
- Submissions to the Petitions Committee of the Berlin House of Representatives (Gz. 690319): described as closed in a letter of 17.08.2026, without reference to the underlying facts; a new submission limited to the prison’s administrative actions followed on 08.09.2026.
- Three personal letters to the Senator for Justice (24.04., 05.05., 05.06.2025) — all forwarded to the body against which the complaint was directed.
- Supervisory complaints to the President of Berlin Regional Court I; the complaint of 05.09.2025 was decided on 26.06.2026 without addressing any of the three identified episodes.
- Two earlier constitutional complaints in the original proceedings were not accepted for decision, without reasons on the merits (2 BvR 964/25); a new complaint of 10.07.2026 was registered under 2 BvR 1314/26; a further complaint of 01.09.2026 has no case reference as yet.
- Individual application to the European Court of Human Rights.
What I ask members of parliament to do
First — a Kleine Anfrage (formal written parliamentary question) on administrative practice, not the individual case: in how many cases each year are prisoners in Berlin refused the recording of statements by the court registry? Are statistics kept? Is a written decision issued?
Second — a question on the documentation of prison mail: in its statement of 07.11.2025, JVA Heidering reported that incoming and delivered mail was not logged. This makes any prisoner’s claim about mail structurally impossible to prove — and any response by the prison impossible to refute.
Third — the question concerning § 306 Abs. 2 StPO: does the legislature consider it acceptable for failure to submit a complaint to have no consequences?
Fourth — requests for visits are possible. Members of parliament can request a prison visit and hear an account of the events without relying on this website.