As head of section 1 at JVA Heidering, Mr Lohmeier signs decisions affecting my access to court and my contact with the outside world. This page arranges the events according to the framework Fact — evidence — legal provision — significance. It presents my assessment and does not replace a judicial finding.
Attribution: Where a document bears a name, that name is given. Where the facility identifies only a function (“head of section, unit 1”, “facility management”), this page gives the function rather than a name — even if the same office later signs documents by name.
1Access to the court registry officer (Urkundsbeamter) prevented for months
On 11.06.2025 — one day after my transfer — I applied in writing to be taken to the court registry officer (Urkundsbeamter der Geschäftsstelle) to lodge time-limited complaints concerning a violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrügen), and pointed out the one-week deadline. No decision was made on that application. On 13.06.2025, the escorted visit was cancelled on the grounds that a deadline had already been missed.
§§ 109, 114 StVollzG · § 345 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: if a time-limited legal remedy is not recorded, it is not delayed but lost. The application of 11.06.2025 was not decided until 04.11.2025 — almost five months later.
Chronology No. 84,
No. 85,
No. 125Alternative hypothesisA transfer takes up staff resources; escorted trips must be organised, and the facility apparently assumed that the deadline had already expired — in that case the trip would have served no purpose.
What is missingThe authority to make that assumption. Whether a deadline has expired is for the court to decide, not the facility. On 12.06.2026 (5 Ws 17/26), the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) found that the facility has no authority to conduct a preliminary examination of the legal remedy.
2The offer came only during the hunger strike — and only after the legal remedy had been lost
On 11.08.2025, during my second hunger strike, the head of section, unit 1, offered to take me to the court registry officer immediately “as an exception”. By then, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) had already decided my complaints on 19.06.2025; access was no longer of any use to me. I declined and instead requested a written decision on the application of 11.06.2025.
“During this conversation, the TAL offered to take me to the court registry officer immediately ‘as an exception’.” — declaration in lieu of oath of 13.08.2025, Annex 67_F2
§ 44 StPO (reinstatement after a missed deadline) requires the deadline to have been missed without fault — it does not remedy proceedings at a level where a decision has already been rendered.
Significance: access granted only once it has become ineffective does not fulfil the duty. In later submissions, the same episode appears as evidence that my request had been “complied with”.
Chronology No. 107Alternative hypothesisThe facility responded to an escalating situation and offered an accommodation — that indicates an effort to help, not the opposite.
What is missingThe timing. The Federal Court of Justice had decided on 19.06.2025. Access granted only when it can no longer achieve anything does not fulfil the duty — yet in later submissions it appears as evidence that the request had been complied with.
3A written decision expressly refused
During the same conversation, the head of section told me that no written decision would be issued. My observation that this was unlawful received no response.
“The TAL told me that no written decision would be issued. When I pointed out that this was unlawful, the TAL remained silent.” — Annex 67_F2
§§ 108, 109 StVollzG · duty to give reasons and notify the decision; without a decision, there is no time limit for a legal remedy and no legal remedy
Significance: without a written decision, there is nothing for a court to review. This is precisely what the supervisory authority also relies on, taking action only after the facility has made a final decision — see
Senate Department for Justice.
Alternative hypothesisIf a request is complied with during a conversation, a formal decision may seem unnecessary; this is common administrative practice.
What is missingThe decision. Without it, no time limit for a legal remedy begins, and there is nothing for a court to review. The supervisory authority also relies on the position that it takes action only after a final decision by the facility.
4The announced annexes were missing — access only after a renewed application
In a letter of 06.10.2025, the Landgericht (Regional Court) stated that JVA Heidering’s submission was “enclosed together with the annexes”. The envelope contained none of them; it bore neither postage nor a postmark. I did not receive the submission until 10.11.2025 — during ongoing proceedings with a deadline for my response.
Art. 10 GG · § 29 StVollzG · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (right to be heard in proceedings concerning the execution of a prison sentence)
Alternative hypothesisAnnexes can be misplaced during mail processing; a single episode does not establish interference, and the documents were subsequently supplied.
What is missingDocumentation. Without a record of the handling of mail, what happened to the consignment can neither be confirmed nor ruled out — and the envelope bore neither postage nor a postmark.
5“No record of incoming or handed-over mail”
In the submission of 07.11.2025 signed by Mr Lohmeier, the facility denies any interference with mail while stating that no records are kept of how mail is handled.
§ 202 StGB · Art. 10 GG · principle that administrative action must be documented in the files
Significance: without documentation, the allegation becomes structurally impossible to prove — while the facility’s position cannot be refuted. This evidential situation affects the prisoner alone.
Chronology No. 127Alternative hypothesisComprehensive documentation of every consignment for several hundred prisoners is scarcely feasible in practice; the facility is describing the reality as it is.
What is missingThe basis for its own statement. Anyone who denies all interference while stating in the same letter that no records are kept has no basis for that denial.
6The hunger strike is labelled “blackmail”
The facility’s submission of 26.09.2025 characterises my hunger strike as blackmail. The hunger strike was a response to being denied access to court — and in fact the only means that produced results each time: on 04.08.2025 a withheld letter was handed over, and on 11.08.2025 an escorted visit to the court registry officer was offered.
Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · § 2 StVollzG (objective of sentence execution)
Significance: cause and effect are reversed. The same reinterpretation later appears in the sentence plan and in the Prosecutor General’s Office’s submission.
Chronology No. 126,
Annex 115_F2Alternative hypothesisFrom the facility’s perspective, a hunger strike is a means of exerting pressure and jeopardises its duty of care; the wording describes the effect, not the motives.
What is missingThe reason, once again. It is not mentioned in the assessment. The same assessment subsequently finds its way into the court’s prognosis.
7Video calls blocked — on the basis of an email to the Senate’s press office
On 17.07.2026, I was informed orally of a three-month ban on video calls, without any legal basis being named; the written decision followed on 22.07.2026 and is signed “On behalf of, Lohmeier”. What matters is the basis for it: an email which, on 12.07.2026, I sent not to the facility, but, among others, to the press office of the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection.
“On 12 July 2026, you sent an email to, among others, the press office of the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection …” — decision of 22.07.2026, Annex 152_F2
The decision also justifies the ban on the grounds that publication jeopardises my rehabilitation because I “continue not to engage with the offence”.
§§ 30, 40 StVollzG Bln · Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK (presumption of innocence)
Significance: in my assessment, the decision raises two questions that do not concern the ban itself. First: how did an email addressed to the Senate’s press office become part of the basis for the facility’s decision? Second: why is a public statement about the proceedings linked to the absence of an admission of guilt?
Chronology No. 167,
No. 172Alternative hypothesisThere is no statutory entitlement to video calls; the facility may withdraw a voluntary additional service if it considers that the service’s purpose is being jeopardised.
What is missingThe provision. To date, no rule prohibiting the disputed use has been named. The facility has since stated in writing that it learned of the publication because it was itself an addressee of the letter to the press of 12.07.2026.
On 11.09.2026, the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) set aside as unlawful the action based on this decision — see point 11 and the dossier on the ban on video calls.
8Two separate risks — different fellow prisoners, different workshops
A risk posed by the fellow prisoner Pavlo S. had been on record since October 2025 (Annex 81_F2, Chronology F5-018). On 10.06.2026, I was transferred to workshop 2, where this fellow prisoner was employed and worked only a few metres away (Chronology F5-009). In the documents available to me, the assignment decision is attributed to facility management, without a named signature.
Separately, on 05.08.2026, in workshop 3, another fellow prisoner, Sergej J., with whom there had already been contact since August 2025, made a death threat and antisemitic insults and spat at me three times (Chronology F5-016). In relation to this second incident, the facility reviewed the camera recordings, found that I had not been the aggressor, and lifted the suspension imposed because of it (Chronology F5-021). These two episodes concern different people and different workshops; I place them side by side because they raise the same question — not because they describe the same set of facts.
§ 2 StVollzG (duty of care) · Art. 2 Abs. 2 GG
Significance: in both cases, the facility had already known, or had been informed, of a risk posed by the respective fellow prisoner, without this leading to physical separation. This applies regardless of who was responsible for the particular assignment in June 2026.
Analysis: provocationsAlternative hypothesisWorkplaces are allocated according to operational requirements; a recorded risk report from the previous year may simply not have been in mind when the assignment was made — and the incident of 05.08.2026 in any event concerns a different fellow prisoner and a different workshop from the report of October 2025.
What is missingThe examination. There is no indication that the recorded report concerning Pavlo S. was considered at all before the assignment to workshop 2. In relation to the incident in workshop 3, there is no separate finding as to whether and when the facility knew of a risk posed by Sergej J. before 05.08.2026.
9Giving up future publications as the “least restrictive means”
On page 2 of the facility’s submission to Berlin Regional Court I of 25.08.2026 in proceedings 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz — signed “Lohmeier, acting head of section 1” — it states that, at the hearing on 17.07.2026, I had not taken the opportunity to refrain from this type of use of video calls in future; rather, it states, I had announced that I wanted to use them for “publications attracting public attention” even after the restriction was lifted. This is taken to mean that a careful balancing exercise had been carried out and the least restrictive means chosen. The same pleading states that the withdrawal is not a sanction for unauthorised conduct — and that the same use is “abusive”.
Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · § 30 StVollzG Bln · principle of proportionality
Significance: according to the wording of this submission, giving up future publications would have led to a less restrictive measure. I make no allegation on the basis that the facility, as respondent, seeks dismissal of my application — it is fully entitled to do so. I object to the fact that, to date, no provision I am alleged to have breached has been named, and that the same activity described twice as “journalist” in the facility’s own master data appears in the pleading as “self-presentation”.
Annex 205_F2,
206_F2,
Chronology No. 198Alternative hypothesisThe facility describes the course of the hearing and seeks to show that it tried to find an agreed solution; the wording is unfortunate but is not intended as a condition.
What is missingThe rule that was breached — and a resolution of the contradiction that the same use is said to be both “not a sanction for unauthorised conduct” and “abusive”. The Regional Court ultimately did not follow this submission — see point 11.
10Use of a previous conviction expunged in 2000 in the sentence plan
According to the finding I set out in my appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) of 09.09.2026, the sentence and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit correctional facility of 17.04.2026, on which the submission of 25.08.2026 relies, is based to a substantial extent on a diagnostic procedure which in turn draws on a previous conviction dating from 2000 which has already been expunged from the Bundeszentralregister (Federal Central Register).
§ 51 Abs. 1 und 2 BZRG
Significance: under § 51 Abs. 1 BZRG, the act and conviction of a person whose entry has been expunged or is due for expungement may no longer be held against that person in legal dealings or used to their disadvantage. According to my account, a prohibition on use that takes effect after 15 years plus the period of execution of the sentence is being disregarded here.
Annex 210_F2, page 3
Alternative hypothesisThe facility may have assumed that a reference already contained in the diagnostic procedure could be passed on without checking the expungement period afresh in the individual case — an error in record keeping, rather than a deliberate circumvention of the prohibition on use.
What is missingAn examination by the facility of whether the 15-year period under § 51 BZRG had already expired in this specific case, and consideration by the Regional Court of this complaint in the challenged decision of 31.07.2026.
11The Regional Court sets aside the decision of 22.07.2026 as unlawful
By order of 11.09.2026 (595 StVK 126/26 Vollz, single judge Netsch-Hohloch), Berlin Regional Court I sets aside the decision of 22.07.2026. The court finds that the requirements for a ban under § 33 Abs. 1 S. 2 i. V. m. § 30 StVollzG Bln were not met: no specific risk had been substantiated, the facility had insufficiently investigated the facts, and a failure to exercise discretion could not be ruled out. In all other respects — the additional requests for declaratory findings — my application remains unsuccessful; the facility bears 9/10 of the costs and I bear 1/10.
“Thus, given the respondent’s inadequate investigation of the facts, it is not even known whether the applicant made statements in the video that are relevant under criminal law …” — order of 11.09.2026, page 5
§ 33 Abs. 1 S. 2 i.V.m. § 30 StVollzG Bln
Significance: the facility never named a provision that would have prohibited my use of video calls — this was already an open question in points 7 and 9. The court did not determine positively that no such provision exists; it set aside the decision because, according to the court’s own finding, the facility had not sufficiently substantiated the requirements for the ban and had insufficiently investigated the facts. What has therefore been established is a judicial finding that the matter has not been clarified — not proof that no rule exists. Full chronology and documents:
Dossier “The ban on video calls”,
Annex 218_F2.
Alternative hypothesisAn error in the exercise of discretion does not establish intent. The facility may have acted in good faith and simply underestimated the strict statutory requirements of § 30 StVollzG Bln, without there being grounds to accuse it of deliberate punitive treatment.
What is missingA statement from the facility as to whether and when it will draw consequences from the decision for comparable cases. Also unresolved is the exact time when the facility itself learned of the order — it coincides with an unannounced technical reactivation on 15.09.2026, two days before my own copy.
Sources: Annexes 56_F2, 67_F2, 79_F2, 84_F2, 91_F2, 146_F2, 152_F2, 205_F2, 206_F2, 210_F2, 211_F2, 212_F2, 218_F2 · Chronology, Case 2, Nos. 84, 85, 107, 121, 125, 126, 127, 167, 172, 200, 203 · Chronology, Case 5, Nos. 16, 18. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented events and statements by the person concerned.