Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →The Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law), 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz
Declared for recording by the court registry on 09.09.2026 — in time, before expiry on 11.09.2026. This dossier documents the route to that point: denial of clothing of my choice, restraints during an escorted trip where they had not previously been customary, and documents temporarily no longer in my possession which were returned on 07.09.2026.
A legal remedy I am not permitted to lodge myself
A Rechtsbeschwerde is available against the order of the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) of 31.07.2026, which rejects my application concerning the sentence and reintegration plan, open prison conditions and relaxations of prison restrictions. Under § 118 Abs. 3 StVollzG, a prisoner without a defence lawyer may declare it only for recording by the court registry. A written submission drafted by the prisoner does not satisfy the required form — it would be inadmissible.
This means that access to legal remedies depends on a trip to Amtsgericht Zossen (Zossen Local Court). The prison must arrange the escorted trip. Anyone who does not receive it in time loses the remedy without any court ever having decided the merits.
On 12.06.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) held (5 Ws 17/26) that where a legal remedy can be supported with grounds only by recording them at the court registry or through a lawyer, the entitlement to a decision free of errors in the exercise of discretion becomes an entitlement to an escorted trip. The prison is not entitled to carry out a “preliminary examination” of whether the remedy is admissible or even worthwhile.
The same division observes that JVA Heidering rightly decided to grant requested escorted trips to the court registry official “directly” and “unconditionally” in future.
From the order to the present
| Date | Matter | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 31.07.2026 | Order of the Landgericht Berlin I, 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz. The chamber expressly records that it did not review the documentation I submitted. | Annex 157_F2 |
| 11.08.2026 | Formal service. The time limit under § 118 Abs. 1 StVollzG expires on 11.09.2026. | Service envelope |
| 17.08.2026 | Anton Malkin posts item RT508494813DE: the prepared text of the Rechtsbeschwerde and the challenged order. | Annex 195_F2 |
| 19.08.2026 | Delivery to JVA Heidering evidenced by Deutsche Post. | Annex 174_F2 |
| 24.08.2026 | Handed to me five days later, after urgent notifications through seven channels. The prison explains the delay by a visual inspection under § 36 StVollzG Berlin which resulted in “no objections whatsoever”. | Chronology F2-190 |
| 24.08.2026 | Application for an appointment with the court registry official, by fax to JVA Heidering, 030 90147-3253. Transmission OK. | 180_F2 · 189_F2 |
| 02.09.2026 | 14:45 — a social worker takes both documents to fax them to Amtsgericht Zossen and promises to return them the following day. | Annex 200_F2 |
| 03. / 04.09.2026 | No return. The staff office is locked at the times when I can visit it. Staff on duty can provide no information. | Annex 200_F2 |
| 07.09.2026 | The documents are returned to me at around 18:00. They are back in my possession. The same day, 17:20: a Bundesverfassungsgericht case reference for the complaint of 10.07.2026. | Annex 208_F2 |
| 07.09.2026 | Declaration in lieu of oath; applications to JVA Heidering through both fax channels; enquiry to Amtsgericht Zossen; copies to the Petitions Committee and the President of the House of Representatives. | 200_F2 – 204_F2 |
| 09.09.2026 | Escorted trip to the registry official at Amtsgericht Zossen. The Rechtsbeschwerde was declared there for recording — two days before expiry of the deadline. According to my own account, I was denied civilian clothing of my choice and, unlike during the escorted trip in January 2026, was restrained on both the outward and return journeys. | Account of the person concerned |
| 11.09.2026 | Deadline met — the Rechtsbeschwerde has been lodged. | § 118 Abs. 1 StVollzG |
What happened — and what I do not infer from it
On 02.09.2026 at around 14:45, a social worker visited me in my cell. She introduced herself as standing in for Ms Mahlow. I heard her name; I do not know its correct spelling — which is why I do not name her here. She explained that she had been tasked with organising my appointment with the registry official at Amtsgericht Zossen and asked for the prepared text of my Rechtsbeschwerde and the challenged order. She would fax both there and return them to me on 03.09.2026. I handed her both documents.
They have not been returned to me to date. I have not been given a transmission report. I do not know whether the documents reached Amtsgericht Zossen — I sent a written enquiry there today.
What I do not assert. I do not assert that the documents are being deliberately withheld from me. I know nothing about the reasons for their non-return or the absence. I do not allege a causal connection between their non-return and expiry of the deadline.
Update of 08.09.2026 — the documents are back. On 07.09.2026 at around 18:00, the prepared text of the Rechtsbeschwerde and the challenged order were handed to me. I expressly record this and no longer maintain the request for their return (Annex 208_F2). The appointment with the court registry official, information about any transmission to Amtsgericht Zossen and the transmission report remain unresolved. The deadline expires on 11.09.2026.
What is established. Four days before the deadline expires, I have neither the text of my Rechtsbeschwerde nor the challenged order. These are the same documents whose handover I had to secure in August through seven submissions.
Update of 09.09.2026 — the deadline has been met. On the morning of 09.09.2026, I was told that my appointment with the registry official at Amtsgericht Zossen would take place that same day. The escorted trip took place and the Rechtsbeschwerde was declared for recording. I record two points about the trip itself, each as my own account without an assessment by the other side: I was denied civilian clothing of my choice and had to leave in work clothing. Unlike a comparable escorted trip in January 2026, when only handcuffs were used and removed in the courthouse, this time I was continuously restrained on both journeys, including leg restraints. I have no written reasons for either measure. I am still examining whether they constitute a separate matter.
What I requested
To JVA Heidering (both fax channels): return of the documents by 08.09.2026, 12:00 · information on whether, when and with what result they were transmitted to Amtsgericht Zossen, together with the transmission report · name and function of the staff member who took them · handover of the replacement set faxed at the same time · escorted trip to the court registry official no later than 10.09.2026 · if refused, a written decision with information on legal remedies.
To the Amtsgericht Zossen (Zossen Local Court): request for an appointment by 10.09.2026 · information on whether a fax from the prison arrived there on 02. or 03.09.2026 · if an appointment before the deadline is not possible, a brief written confirmation of that fact for an application for Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand (restoration of the missed time limit).
To Petitions Committee and the President of the House of Representatives: update to my submission of 01.09.2026 with a copy of the applications.
- Annex 200_F2 — declaration in lieu of oath of 07.09.2026
- Annex 201_F2 — fax package to JVA Heidering, 030 90147-3253
- Annex 202_F2 — fax package to JVA Heidering, second channel 030 90147-3231
- Annex 203_F2 — fax package to Amtsgericht Zossen, 03377 307-100
- Annex 204_F2 — fax packages to the Petitions Committee and the President of the House of Representatives
- Working basis for the court registry — full text of the Rechtsbeschwerde
The enclosed text is a working basis, not a template to copy
Under the case law on § 118 Abs. 3 StVollzG, the court registry may not copy a submitted document verbatim or take its contents by dictation; it must examine the applications as to form and substance, provide guidance and give them appropriate and clear expression (OLG Hamm, order of 22.02.1999 — 1 Vollz (Ws) 241/99; BGH, order of 18.12.2012 — 1 StR 593/12). Mere copying would make the Rechtsbeschwerde vulnerable to challenge rather than more valid. The substantive content remains mine — the form is the registry's responsibility.
On 13.01.2026, the registry of Amtsgericht Zossen duly recorded a Rechtsbeschwerde of mine (131 AR 1/26). This concerns the route to that court, not an allegation against it.
Every response is published in full
The bodies concerned are informed before I publish, not afterwards. I accept responses from JVA Heidering, Amtsgericht Zossen or the Senate Department for Justice and publish them in full alongside my account. My own corrections also appear here, each dated.
This page as of 09.09.2026. Transmission records will be added as soon as they become available.