Arşiv

📂 My Correspondence with the Kammergericht Berlin Since 16 January 2026 – Failure to Investigate the Criminal Complaint, Failure to Collect Evidence and Continuing Inaction – Case No. 6 Ws 11/26

Explanation This folder contains, in chronological order, my applications to the Kammergericht Berlin concerning the failure to investigate the criminal complaint that I lodged with Berlin Police, LKA 121, on 19 December 2025 under reference number 251219-1346-467062, the response I received from the Kammergericht, and the additional materials I subsequently submitted to the Court. I prepared my first application on 10 January 2026. The document was officially received and stamped by the Kammergericht Berlin on 16 January 2026. In that application, I sought judicial intervention under § 172 StPO and expressly identified the Berlin Criminal Police reference number 251219-1346-467062. I stated that no investigation had been conducted into my criminal complaint, no independent forensic medical examination had been ordered, and that the continuing inaction created not only a risk of irreversible loss of evidence but also serious risks to my health and life. scan_20260623135312-152426.pdf In my application, I specifically requested that the Kammergericht determine that the public prosecutor’s office had failed to fulfil its duty of criminal prosecution; order the public prosecutor’s office to commence an investigation immediately; appoint an independent forensic medical expert, including a dental expert; have the existing photographic and X-ray material and treatment records professionally assessed; determine the extent of the damage, causation and possible treatment errors; and take any other necessary measures for the immediate preservation of evidence. The annexes and evidence identified included photographs of my teeth and oral cavity, X-ray material, WhatsApp evidence documenting payments amounting to EUR 11,000, and copies of previous complaints and submissions. scan_20260623135312-152426.pdf The principal reason for this application was the inaction that already existed at that time. After lodging my criminal complaint with the police on 19 December 2025, I had not been summoned, as promised, to provide an additional statement and submit my evidence, and the materials in my possession had not been collected. During the police interview, however, I had been informed that the matter would be forwarded to the prosecutor and that the prosecutor would decide under which criminal allegations my complaint would proceed. I therefore had the expectation that the matter would be transferred to the public prosecutor’s office and investigated. Nevertheless, the additional evidence in my possession was not collected and no concrete criminal investigation known to me had been initiated. It was precisely for this reason that I requested judicial intervention by the Kammergericht and an appropriate order requiring the investigation to proceed. The timely collection of evidence from me — the person who had lodged the criminal complaint — was of particular importance. When I reported the matter to the police, I informed them that I possessed WhatsApp communications, audio material, video and photographic material, and other evidence relating to the payments and the treatment performed, and I showed some of this material on my telephone. I was told that I would subsequently be summoned separately and that these materials would then be collected. Because this did not occur, those materials remained outside the investigation. The passage of time, changes in the workplaces or professional locations of the treating persons, and the increasing difficulty of obtaining other evidence later made preservation of the evidence even more important. In my initial application to the Kammergericht, I specifically stated that the continuing inaction created a risk that evidence could be lost. scan_20260623135312-152426.pdf The Kammergericht registered the matter under case number 6 Ws 11/26 and responded to me on 24 February 2026. In that letter, relying on information provided by the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin on 18 February 2026, the Kammergericht stated that, at that time, no corresponding Ermittlungsverfahren yet existed at the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin and that the matter apparently remained under police processing. The Court therefore stated that an application under § 172 StPO was not admissible at that stage. At the same time, the Kammergericht noted that the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft would forward the submitted documents to the appropriate authority. scan_20260623134522-151630.pdf This response was particularly significant to me because the very reason I had applied to the Kammergericht on 16 January 2026 was that my criminal complaint was not being investigated, while the Kammergericht’s letter of 24 February officially stated that, as of 18 February, no corresponding criminal investigation yet existed at the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin. scan_20260623134522-151630.pdf I subsequently continued pursuing the matter. The materials I had submitted to the Kammergericht were forwarded to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin. Accordingly, the materials reaching the public prosecutor’s office already contained the substance of my complaint, the police reference number 251219-1346-467062, and the reasons why I had applied to the Kammergericht. Nevertheless, in subsequent correspondence, the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin stated that it was unable to identify the specific case and proceedings to which my submission related and requested that I again specify the particular case, court/authority and case reference number. From my perspective, this created an important contradiction: the materials I had submitted to the Kammergericht and which had been forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft already expressly contained the specific police reference number 251219-1346-467062 and the reason for my application. Moreover, the very reason for my application to the Kammergericht was that no criminal investigation had been opened, the police had not summoned me to provide my additional statement, and the evidence in my possession had not been collected. This constituted a new and significant circumstance demonstrating that the problem raised in my application of 16 January had not been resolved. For this reason, I submitted the extensive Stellungnahme that I had provided to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin on 23 March 2026 to both the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin and the Kammergericht Berlin. The covering letter sent to the Kammergericht was officially received and stamped on 25 March 2026 under case number 6 Ws 11/26. The letter expressly stated that the attached Stellungnahme concerned my criminal complaint of 19 December 2025, the manner in which the complaint had been received by the police, the preservation of evidence, and the course of the investigation up to that point. I requested that the Kammergericht take the substance of these materials into consideration within the scope of its judicial authority, re-examine the matter in light of this additional evidence and information, and take the judicial action necessary to ensure that the criminal complaint and the continuing failure to investigate were properly addressed, rather than merely retaining or archiving the documents. The letter also expressly stated that the attached Stellungnahme contained specific indications of possible procedural irregularities and unresolved questions requiring clarification. scan_20260623134234-151349.pdf My particular purpose in submitting these documents to the Kammergericht was to bring to the Court’s attention, now also through subsequent documentary evidence, that the inaction which had formed the basis of my application received on 16 January 2026 had not been remedied. On the contrary, the subsequent correspondence showed that even after my Kammergericht application had been forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft, and even after the materials explaining the substance of the matter — including the police reference number — had reached the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office still stated that it was unable to determine which specific case was concerned. It was precisely this contradiction that I sought to bring to the attention of the Kammergericht, so that the Court could examine the matter again and more closely, take into account that the grounds underlying my application of 16 January continued to exist, and address my request for judicial intervention and an appropriate order requiring my criminal complaint to be investigated. The urgency of the matter was not merely procedural. In my initial application to the Kammergericht, I expressly described severe and progressive destruction of my teeth extending over more than four years, massive inflammation in the oral cavity, severe pain, loss of chewing function, resulting nutritional problems, physical weakness and risks of infection. I also informed the Court of my HIV/AIDS condition, previous heart attack and surgery, chronic prostatitis, history of pulmonary tuberculosis, hepatitis A affecting the liver, chronic sinusitis, gastrointestinal illnesses, serious medical suspicion of oncological disease, and other serious illnesses, and stated that these circumstances substantially increased the urgency of the matter. It was for these reasons that I requested the immediate preservation of evidence, the conduct of an investigation, and the appointment of an independent forensic medical expert. These circumstances were not merely informational for the prosecutorial authorities. Under the principle of legality (Legalitätsprinzip) embodied in § 152(2) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), unless otherwise provided by law, the public prosecutor’s office is obliged to take action in relation to prosecutable criminal offences where sufficient factual indications exist. Under § 160(1) StPO, once the public prosecutor’s office becomes aware, through a criminal complaint or by other means, of circumstances giving rise to suspicion of a criminal offence, it must investigate the facts in order to determine whether public charges should be brought. § 160(2) StPO further requires the prosecution to investigate both incriminating and exonerating circumstances and to ensure that evidence which may be lost is obtained and preserved. Accordingly, from my perspective, where the materials I submitted contained indications of possible criminal conduct, serious procedural questions concerning my being asked to sign a document whose substantive section was blank during the police intake, evidence that had not been collected, and information concerning serious risks to my health and life, the matter should not simply have been transferred between authorities and left without substantive resolution. It should have been investigated within the framework of § 152(2) and § 160 StPO, and evidence at risk of being lost should have been secured. After I submitted these additional materials to the Kammergericht Berlin on 25 March 2026 under case number 6 Ws 11/26, I received no further substantive response from the Kammergericht concerning that submission up to 20 September 2026.