Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference denotes registration in the proceedings register, nothing more) · second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 still without a case reference · criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026 undecided; the presumption of innocence applies · Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz declared in time for the record before the registry clerk on 09.09.2026 (the episode) · video-call ban of 22.07.2026 set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on the episode) · criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner with the Potsdam Public Prosecutor’s Office under 496 Js 34084/26 is being processed.
A case file on Revision (appeals on points of law), access to court and prognosis in the execution of sentences
This page organises the case by area of law and identifies points of doctrinal interest together with their case references. It also marks where the supporting evidence ends — including where that does not benefit the person concerned.
Domestic judicial remedies have been exhausted. On 18.08.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate complaint) against the refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). No further remedy is available.
The alleged violations concern Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (a decision based on a hearing note available to both courts but never accessible to me), Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (dispensing with the expert report under § 454 Abs. 2 StPO because of an unproven attribution), Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG and Art. 2 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG. Not alleged: § 169 Abs. 1 GVG and the single-judge composition under § 78b Abs. 1 GVG — both examined and rejected.
Supporting documents: Dossier on the constitutional complaint · Transmission records · Chronology archive
A case file, not an indictment
This page is intended for criminal defence lawyers, prison-law practitioners, researchers and those involved in legal education. It refrains from evaluations where the records speak for themselves and openly identifies where the supporting evidence is thin.
The case is of interest for two reasons. First, it brings together an unusual concentration of questions concerning appeals on points of law, prison law and access to court. Second, it is almost completely documented — including the verbatim submissions of the person concerned, allowing the arguments to be compared with the decision.
Matrix of possible grounds for reopening proceedings (§ 359 StPO)
A separate page organises possible approaches to reopening into four avenues: new evidence (§ 359 Nr. 5), a possible criminal offence by a judge (§ 359 Nr. 3 — currently procedurally barred by § 364 StPO), judgment/document identity (correction order of 30.07.2025) and a finding by the European Court of Human Rights (§ 359 Nr. 6). Each candidate carries an evidential status, statutory basis and next sensible step; where the evidence does not support a formulation, that is expressly stated.
Notice of remedies accompanying Annex 29_F3 — a documentary finding, not merely a question of time limits
On the author’s own examination of the document provided, the notice of remedies attached to the order of 08.01.2025 consists of two unrelated blocks: a correct beginning (§ 304 StPO), a break in mid-sentence, then standard-form text on remedies that are not available against an order. No time limit is mentioned anywhere.
§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO — addition of the list of provisions after finality
The judgment of the Berlin Regional Court I of 22.07.2024 (522 Ks 5/23) did not contain the list of applied provisions. An order of 30.07.2025 inserted it as the correction of a clerical error — 373 days after pronouncement, 84 days after the decision of the 5th Criminal Division of 07.05.2025 (5 StR 72/25), and after the judgment had become final. The order contained no notice of remedies.
On 31.10.2025, the Kammergericht dismissed the complaint as inadmissible at the threshold: the list, it held, was not part of the operative formula of the judgment and did not establish Beschwer (an adverse effect required for standing to challenge). Whether the addition was permissible after finality was therefore not examined.
§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO in practice — and the index of grounds of challenge
From September 2024, the person concerned had no reachable defence lawyer; he received a copy of counsel’s statement of grounds for the Revision on 06.12.2024, eight days after the deadline. Supplements were therefore possible only through the court registry. Their recording was refused on 15.01., 24.02., 14.03. and 18.03.2025; on each occasion, the staff said they were acting on instructions.
Eight supplements nevertheless made it onto the record. They are reproduced in full on this website. In its order of 07.05.2025, the 5th Criminal Division recorded that they had been before it and had been the subject of deliberation; the order of 19.06.2025 specified “up to and including Part 7”.
This situation gave rise to an index of grounds of challenge with 28 entries: each individual ground, the date it was recorded, the applicable provision, the link to the full text — and an indication of whether it appears in the order. Only grounds raised in submissions that the Division itself identified as being before it are included; Part 8 is deliberately excluded because the Division stated that it had no longer taken it into account.
§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO as a Sollvorschrift — a provision prescribing the rule for the ordinary case
According to the Kammergericht’s order of 31.10.2025, the obligation to refer the matter within three days is a Sollvorschrift without direct procedural consequences. The person concerned sees this as allowing progression through the judicial instances to be suspended simply by failing to refer the matter; it is the subject of a constitutional complaint of 27.11.2025.
The question became practically relevant because two applications of 13.02.2025, recorded and expressly addressed to the Federal Court of Justice and the Kammergericht, were answered by the Regional Court. The registry and the court of origin are located on the same premises. No explanation has been provided.
§§ 16, 42 StVollzG Bln — prognosis and double counting
The order of the 95th Sentence Enforcement Chamber of 31.07.2026 (595 StVK 68/26 Vollz) correctly quotes the standard: it must be examined whether the prison authority proceeded on the basis of facts established accurately and fully. It also quotes the limit stated in KG 5 Ws 177/17 Vollz — a refusal may not be based solely on denial of the offence — and finds that the prison had relied on that “not exclusively”.
This gives rise to two questions for the Rechtsbeschwerde:
| Point of challenge | Approach |
|---|---|
| Completeness of the factual basis | The Chamber records that it had “not scanned and reviewed, and therefore not used as a basis for its decision” the documentation submitted by the person concerned about the conduct characterised as a “fight against the justice system”. At the same time, it adopts the prison’s factual assertion that the person concerned had published names on the internet, “as a result of which attacks on the property were subsequently carried out by third parties” — a finding not contained in that form in the judgment of 22.07.2024. |
| Double counting | The prognostic factors presented as independent — failure to address the offence, unwillingness to engage in treatment, lack of self-reflection, a “fight for justice”, a sense of injustice, behaviour characterised by reactance — can all be traced back to non-acceptance of the conviction. Whether these therefore constitute “further circumstances relevant to the prognosis” is the core question. |
| Assessment specific to the measure under § 42 | Accompanied outings are also rejected on the general ground that an accompanying person has no obligation to provide constant supervision. In the view of the person concerned, there was therefore no differentiation by the specific measure and degree of openness of the regime. |
How evidential support is identified
The documentation distinguishes four levels, identifiable on every page:
- Officially established — directly apparent from a decision, record or official communication.
- Substantiated by procedural submissions — derived from a submission declared for the record or demonstrably filed.
- Account of the person concerned — perception or recollection, in some cases declared in lieu of oath; no independent corroboration.
- Open question — formulated as a question, without making an assertion.
Where documents are missing, this is stated: for example, the discontinuance decision in proceedings 231 Js 3707/21 and the Prosecutor General’s Office’s letter concerning the complaint against a criminal police officer. Neither is accessible to the person concerned; the corresponding information is therefore presented as a declaration in lieu of oath, identifying the document that would verify it.
What can be drawn from this case
- The annotated judgment — judgment text and annotations side by side; useful for training in judgment analysis.
- The chronology archive — nearly 290 individual episodes with dates and case references; to our knowledge, an unusually complete collection of material on access issues in the prison context.
- The “Deception” series — eight episodes, including a notice of remedies assembled from two templates without a time limit (§§ 35a, 44 Satz 2 StPO).
- The participants in the proceedings — following the structure: fact, supporting evidence, provision, significance.
- The reopening matrix — four avenues under § 359 StPO, each candidate’s status and next step.
Enquiries, including about individual case references or the provision of scans: bagrash.presse@gmail.com
How this website is made and how to reach me →