Since this page was created, three matters directly concerning access to the courts have been added.
A document that two courts had and I did not. The order of 24.06.2026 refers to the “hearing note prepared”; the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismisses my Gehörsrüge (complaint of a violation of the right to be heard) on 18.08.2026 using the same note. It was never made accessible to me. Nor was the full statement of the Prosecutor General's Office — it reached me twenty days after the decision based on it.
Five days while the deadline was running. The draft of my Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) was delivered to the prison on 19.08.2026 and handed to me only on 24.08.2026 — after urgent notifications through seven channels. The prison explained the delay by a visual inspection under § 36 StVollzG Berlin that resulted in “no objections whatsoever”.
And an error of my own. The fax number of the President of the House of Representatives which I had used since 30.03.2026 was wrong. Four transmission attempts failed; receipt is evidenced only for 02.09.2026. I record this here because this page concerns access problems — and I caused one of them myself.
Evidence: KG order · The envelope · Visual inspection · Transmission records
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 →Access to justice denied
Seven systematically documented obstacles to my legal protection since pronouncement of the judgment on 22.07.2024 — each with its own mini-timeline and direct references to original documents.
This page replaces the former “Current proceedings” section. Instead of merely reporting procedural status, I systematically document recurring patterns of denial of legal protection — organised by theme, with evidence from my own applications, official replies and court decisions.
Each point presents my own perspective and legal assessment. It does not replace a judicial finding but serves public and journalistic verification. Where an assessment is my own conclusion rather than supported verbatim by a document, this is indicated.
→ What follows if this holds? Twelve decisions from these seven themes, each read as a general rule. · → Chains Seven sequences of documented dates.
Documented separately: Pressure to confess as a condition for freedom — this theme is not substantively an access problem but a separate, central aspect of my case.