This page concerns the handling of my urgent application for an escorted visit to the court registry officer (Urkundsbeamter der Geschäftsstelle) in June 2025.
1A prison officer decides a question of compliance with a time limit
On 13.06.2025, my application was refused on the stated ground that the relevant time limits had already expired before my transfer. Whether a procedural time limit has expired is a question of law for the court to decide. Moreover, the delay itself had arisen because my Anhörungsrüge (complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard) had not been fully recorded at the prison from which I was transferred.
§ 345 Abs. 2 StPO · § 44 StPO · § 108 StVollzG
Significance: A failure to meet a time limit is held against me which, according to my account, was caused by official action.
Chronology No. 85Alternative hypothesisIn everyday practice, prison staff often make preliminary assessments of time limits to sort applications — this does not replace a judicial decision, but may have been intended as initial information.
What is missingForwarding to the competent court for a binding determination of the time limit, rather than a refusal by the officer herself.
2Oral instead of written — and therefore not open to challenge
The refusal was given orally. No written decision with information on legal remedies was issued. Only after a hunger strike from 04. to 11.08.2025 was a single escorted visit made possible — 54 days after receipt of the relevant decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice).
§§ 108, 109 StVollzG · § 35a StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: Without a written decision, there is nothing for a court to review — and, on its own interpretation, the supervisory authority acts only after the prison has made a final decision.
Senate Department, point 1 ·
Chronology No. 107Alternative hypothesisOral interim replies are common in everyday prison practice when a formal decision is to follow — that alone does not yet amount to a final denial of legal protection.
What is missingThe announced or subsequently issued written decision with information on legal remedies — it is still absent today.
Sources: Annex 84_F2 · Case 2 chronology, Nos. 83, 84, 85, 103, 107. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.