Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 — no response for more than six weeks
On 10.07.2026, a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) against an order of the Kammergericht Berlin (Berlin Higher Regional Court) and two orders of the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) was filed by fax with the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), complete with 17 annexes and a detailed examination of admissibility. To date, there is neither an acknowledgement of receipt nor a case reference. In my own experience, the court usually responds within a few working days with a provisional case reference.
What this concerns
The constitutional complaint challenges the order of the Kammergericht Berlin, 5. Strafsenat (Criminal Division), of 12.06.2026 (case reference 5 Ws 17/26), dismissing as inadmissible a Rechtsbeschwerde (complaint on points of law) against the withdrawal of access to the Urkundsbeamten der Geschäftsstelle (court registry officer authorised to formally record submissions), and two preceding orders of the Landgericht Berlin I (case reference 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz, dated 04.11.2025 and 10.12.2025).
Violations of Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG (effective legal protection), Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG (the right to be heard) and Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG (the general right of personality) are alleged. The complaint explains that domestic judicial remedies have been exhausted in full and was filed in time within the one-month period under § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG.
This page does not claim that the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s inactivity is unlawful. Processing times of several weeks are not unusual in complex proceedings, and a lack of acknowledgement does not necessarily say anything substantive about the prospects of success. Only the chronology is documented: the filing date, proof of transmission and the absence so far of a response channel, as a factual situation rather than an allegation.
From judicial remedies to the constitutional complaint
Documents filed with the constitutional complaint
| No. | Description | Internal reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | KG Berlin order 12.06.2026, case reference 5 Ws 17/26 | Annex 142_F2 |
| 2 | AG Zossen record 13.01.2026 | Annex 95_F2 |
| 3 | Sentence and reintegration plan 17.04.2026 | Annex 115_F2 |
| 4 | LG Berlin I order 24.06.2026, case reference 589f StVK 86/26 | Annex 139_F2 |
| 5 | Transmission report for immediate complaint 01.07.2026 | Annex 140_F2 |
| 6 | Open Statement on the immediate complaint | Annex 141_F2 |
| 7 | LG Berlin I order 10.12.2025 (complaint of a violation of the right to be heard) | Annex 88_F2 |
| 8 | LG Berlin I order 10.12.2025 (§ 109 StVollzG) | Annex 87_F2 |
| 9 | JVA statement / coordination with Senatsverwaltung (the state government department) | Annex 84_F2 |
| 10 | JVA statement MTAL 1-AR1024, 07.11.2025 | Annex 83_F2 |
| 11 | Bagrash written submission 21.10.2025 | Annex 80_F2 |
| 12 | LG letter 06.10.2025 | Annex 79_F2 |
| 13 | Application under § 109 StVollzG 17.09.2025 | Annex 74_F2 |
| 14 | Bagrash statement 24.11.2025 | Annex 86_F2 |
| 15 | Eidesstattliche Erklärung (declaration in lieu of oath) 13.08.2025 | Annex 67_F2 |
| 16 | Eidesstattliche Erklärung (declaration in lieu of oath) 20.06.2025 | Annex 44_F2 |
| 17 | Eidesstattliche Erklärung (declaration in lieu of oath) 19.06.2025 | Annex 43_F2 |
Why this extends beyond the individual case
- The complaint concerns not only an individual decision but a consistent pattern: access to the court registry officer authorised to record submissions was effectively blocked through several court levels before any substantive decision on the matter.
- The Kammergericht dismissed the complaint on points of law as inadmissible without clarifying the underlying question: the attribution of a sentence plan bearing no signature.
- The constitutional complaint thus represents the last domestic instance for a question of fundamental importance: what minimum requirements apply to the attribution of sentence enforcement decisions with significant implications for fundamental rights.