Dr. Busse-Muskala | Responsible parties

This page concerns the decisions on my applications for access to the court registry officer (Urkundsbeamter) in case 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz, as well as an unresolved postal episode.

1The urgent application — decided five months after filing

My application is dated 11.06.2025 and expressly relied on time limits that were running. The application for an interim order was refused on 04.11.2025; the decision on the merits followed on 10.12.2025. By then, the time limits whose preservation was at issue had expired months earlier.

§§ 109, 114 StVollzG · § 198 GVG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: A decision on urgent judicial protection given after five months can no longer fulfil its purpose. Chronology No. 116 · No. 130

Alternative hypothesisCourts are chronically overburdened; taking several months to process an urgent application may reflect a structural backlog rather than deliberate delay.

What is missingAn interim direction or status update during the five months showing that the application was treated as urgent.

2The decision concerned appointments before the transfer

The decision relies on the statement that I was granted access to the court registry officer on 27.05., 28.05. and 06.06.2025. All these dates fall before my transfer to JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison) on 10.06.2025 and do not relate to the application at issue.

§ 109 StVollzG · § 261 StPO by analogy · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Significance: The decision thus concerned a different set of facts from those raised in the application. Chronology No. 125

Alternative hypothesisWhen drafting the decision, the Chamber may have overlooked the precise chronology of the transfer — an oversight rather than a deliberate distortion of the sequence of events.

What is missingAn explanation of how appointments before the transfer could relate to an application expressly concerning the situation afterwards.

3The envelope without a postmark

A letter from the Regional Court dated 06.10.2025 announced the prison’s submission “together with annexes”. The envelope contained neither the submission nor the annexes and bore neither postage nor a postmark. I documented this in a written submission dated 21.10.2025 and applied for the original envelope to be obtained; I received the submission only on 10.11.2025.

§ 29 StVollzG · Art. 10 GG · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Significance: An envelope without postage and without a postmark cannot have travelled by post. The evidentiary application has not been granted to this day. Chronology No. 121 · No. 122

Alternative hypothesisAn empty or incorrectly filled envelope may be a simple error by the court’s mailroom, independent of the Chamber itself.

What is missingThe original envelope, which I applied to have obtained, and the subsequent dispatch of the announced annexes.

4The appeal on points of law against the order of 10.12.2025 could not be located for months

Against the order of the 99th Sentence Enforcement Chamber dated 10.12.2025 in case 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz, on 13.01.2026 I lodged a Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) and an application for permission to appeal by having them recorded at the registry of Amtsgericht Zossen (Zossen Local Court) (file reference 131 AR 1/26).

For months, I received neither evidence from the Regional Court that the matter had been referred to the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court), nor an acknowledgment of receipt or file reference from the Kammergericht. On 30.03.2026, I raised the same matter at four levels on one day, setting a time limit of 72 hours in each instance.

§ 118 StVollzG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Supporting documents: 102_F2 · 103_F2 · 104_F2 · 105_F2

Alternative hypothesisA document may be held up between two courts in the post or during internal forwarding without any office deliberately delaying it.

What is missingA forwarding note or receipt stamp showing when the appeal on points of law actually arrived at the Regional Court.

5Correction of 02.09.2026 concerning my own escalation

One of the four letters of 30.03.2026 was addressed to the President of the House of Representatives — at fax number (030) 2325 1048. This number is incorrect; the correct number is (030) 2325 1008.

Receipt by the President is therefore first evidenced on 02.09.2026. This does not apply to the Petitions Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee; their lines demonstrably work. I record the error here because it is mine.

Supporting documents: Chronology No. 143 · Annex 199_F2

Sources: Annexes 79_F2, 82_F2, 83_F2 · Case 2 chronology, Nos. 116, 121, 122, 125, 130. Added on 02.09.2026: Annexes 102_F2 to 105_F2, 199_F2 · Case 2 chronology, Nos. 143, 196. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.