Denied access to the case file
Without access to one's own case file, effective grounds for an appeal on points of law within the deadline are practically impossible. Across several court levels, this access was denied or delayed — from a refusal without a prescribed form by presiding Regional Court Judge Groß (VRiLG) to the express finding of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) that, as an “accused person represented by counsel”, I had no personal right of access to the file at all.
As contact with my court-appointed defence lawyer had been impossible for months, I applied to the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court) for an extension of time for the supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law and for access to the file.
Presiding Judge Groß replied without a prescribed form: access to the files was “no longer possible because the files are no longer at the court”, also pointing out that the deadline for submitting the grounds for the appeal on points of law had already expired.
“I would also point out that the deadline for submitting the grounds for the appeal on points of law has expired; the law provides no possibility of extending it in this case.”
My own assessment: I had expressly requested an extension of time for a supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law already submitted — a deadline which had not yet expired at that point. The reply failed to address this request.
142 days after my application, Gabriele Cirener, President of the BGH's 5th Criminal Division, decided that my applications for access to the file would be rejected because an “accused person represented by counsel” generally has no personal right of access to it.
At JVA Heidering, I applied for access within a specified time to all documents the prison had sent to the EWA commission, expressly stating that without knowing these documents I could not properly prepare for the conference of 13.03.2026.
Assessment
For over a year and a half, the same pattern repeats: refusal without substantive examination of my reasoning, followed by reference to supposedly expired deadlines or formal rules of jurisdiction. The 142-day processing period at the BGH alone meant that every opportunity for a timely supplement to the appeal on points of law based on the file had long passed before any decision was made.