“Unlawful – but no one is responsible”: court overturns ban, JVA Heidering finds no breach of duty

On 11 September 2026 the Regional Court Berlin I set aside as unlawful the ban on Dmitry Bagrash’s video calls in JVA Heidering (595 StVK 126/26 Vollz). To his disciplinary complaint against the officer who imposed the ban, the prison management replies in a decision of 16 October 2026: no breach of duty has been found; there is no right to detailed reasons. Bagrash is now turning to the Senate Department for Justice as supervisory authority.

What happened

• 12.07.2026: by e-mail Bagrash draws the Senate Department for Justice’s press office’s attention to a video about his case, recorded in prison.
• 22.07.2026: JVA Heidering bans his video calls for three months, on the ground that he “misused” them to spread personal views about the Berlin judiciary.
• 11.09.2026: the Regional Court Berlin I sets the ban aside as unlawful; the statutory requirements were not met. The prison bears 9/10 of the costs.
• 01.10.2026: disciplinary complaint to the prison against the responsible officer; supervisory complaint to the Senate Department on what conclusions are drawn from the decision.
• 16.10.2026 (handed over 27.10.2026): the prison management rejects the disciplinary complaint. The officer has commented; no breach found. The decision is signed in type with the governor’s name; the contact named is the officer’s successor.
• The supervisory complaint to the Senate Department remains unanswered.

The legal position

Under case law, a reply to a disciplinary complaint need not give detailed reasons. Bagrash does not dispute this.

For that very reason only one result remains in public view: a court finds a measure unlawful – and no one is responsible. Which duty was examined, and why a measure set aside by a court is no breach of duty, cannot be seen.

Bagrash won the court case against the ban itself. What remains open is responsibility – and only the supervisory authority and the public can answer that.

What Bagrash is asking for

• From the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection (supervisory complaint): to state which duties were examined and on what findings the denial rests; to decide on the supervisory complaint of 01.10.2026; to state what conclusions were drawn from the decision of 11.09.2026.
• From JVA Heidering (access request): a copy of the officer’s statement and the review notes; who drafted and who signed the decision.

Questions newsrooms can put to the authorities

• Which duties did the prison examine, and what statement did it have before it?
• Has the Senate Department drawn conclusions from the decision of 11.09.2026 for practice at JVA Heidering?
• In how many cases since 2024 have measures of Berlin prisons set aside by a court led to disciplinary consequences?

“The court decided the ban was unlawful. The prison decided that nobody did anything wrong. Both can stand together only if unlawful action is allowed to have no consequences.” – Dmitry Bagrash

Also: on 27 October 2026 Bagrash was handed the written sentence plan – 14 pages, unsigned, only an abbreviation. It confirms the condition from the conference of 23 October: open prison only in exchange for “offence work”. Bagrash denies the offence; he has extended his court application to the written plan (press release of 26.10.2026).

No decision has been taken on the complaints and applications. For the officers concerned, no disciplinary finding exists; the assessments are those of the person concerned.

Documents

Contact: bagrash.presse@gmail.com · Press ID 2135610 · Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren. This press release may be passed on unchanged.