Service of decisions on defence counsel: when the prison complaint deadline starts

A complaint deadline does not start according to intuition, but by reference to a legally relevant event. For decisions in enforcement this is usually announcement, notification or service. If that date remains unclear, the first dispute later is not about the merits, but about timeliness.

For prisoners this is particularly sensitive. Mail routes, restricted communication and delayed forwarding to relatives or defence counsel can make a fourteen day deadline much shorter in practice. Service itself therefore has to be treated as evidence.

Defence counsel can react effectively only if counsel knows the decision and the service date. In enforcement this can concern decisions on complaints, order issues, transfer, relaxations or other burdensome measures. A mere telephone hint is no substitute for the decision.

The Ministry draft on Section 17 para 1 no 3 StVG is intended to make service on defence counsel on request clearer. Until a new version applies, it should still be documented early that service on counsel was requested and which address is to be used.

Relatives often cannot conduct the complaint themselves, but they can secure documents. These include the decision, envelope or service note, date of handover, name of the prison, file number and every message to defence counsel or relatives.

A short chronology is useful: when was the decision handed over, when could the prisoner make a phone call, when was defence counsel informed and when was a copy transmitted? Those data later decide whether a deadline problem can be explained plausibly.

The 2026 Prison Law Amendment is currently a ministry draft. It must therefore not be treated as if the new service rule had already been enacted. The draft nevertheless shows that the legislature has identified the practical friction between prisoner, defence counsel and the running of deadlines.

For ongoing proceedings the legal review remains twofold. First, current law applies. Second, the draft can support the argument why complete service documentation and timely involvement of defence counsel are objectively necessary.