Order of the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) refusing to suspend the remainder of the sentence on probation
On 01.07.2026 I received the order of the Berlin Regional Court I — Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences — of 24.06.2026 in proceedings 589f StVK 86/26. It refused to suspend execution of the remaining prison sentence on probation. The order relies on the statement of the Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin) and the statement of Heidering prison (JVA Heidering) of 07.05.2026, and refers to a hearing note that had not been sent to me by then. My prison conduct, hunger strikes, publications and insistence on innocence were included in the adverse prognosis.
This is a key document: in my view, it confirms that actions seeking legal protection, public documentation and my insistence on innocence were used as adverse prognostic factors rather than assessed neutrally. I challenged the order on the very day of service by an immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde; chronology no. 162); it later became a central subject of the constitutional complaint (chronology no. 166).
ORDER — Berlin Regional Court I, Az. 589f StVK 86/26
176 Js 4/22 V Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin · sentence-enforcement proceedings against Dmitry Bagrash, born on 09.05.1968 in Moscow, JVA Heidering · ordered by Judge Lechner sitting alone on 24 June 2026.
Operative part
“Suspension of execution of the remaining prison sentence on probation is refused.”
I. Facts
The convicted person is serving an aggregate prison sentence of five years and four months under the judgmentThe LG Berlin judgment of 22.07.2024 initially contained no list of the provisions applied (§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO). The list was added only on 30.07.2025 — 373 days later and after the BGH decision. of the Berlin Regional Court I of 22 July 2024 (522 KLS 5/23), final since 8 May 2025. Two thirds of the sentence had been served on 5 July 2026; the end of the sentence is 14 April 2028. The Prosecutor General’s Office requested refusal; in its statement of 7 May 2026, JVA Heidering likewise did not support early release owing to the absence of a favourable prognosis of law-abiding conduct and social adjustment. The convicted person was heard orally on 24 June 2026.
II. Reasons
The chamber considers that suspension must be refused under § 57 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 StGB because it cannot be justified having regard to the public interest in safety. It relies on the following considerations:
- Prison conduct: According to the court, the convicted person is “already not free from criticism”: he repeatedly went on hunger strikes to oppose postal checks or the failure to escort him to the registry official; he publishes all documents he receives and threatens to publish the real names and photographs of justice-system staff.
- Failure to come to terms with the offence: The court places particular adverse weight on the convicted person’s failure so far to come to terms with his offences. At the hearing, he stated that he had not committed the act, viewed himself as the victim of a conspiracy by the justice system and expressed an “urge for retaliation”.
- Political activities: Asked whether he intended to continue his political activities, the convicted person said he would do so “in any event”.
- Social prognosis: According to the court, a need for social-therapeutic treatment has been identified, but treatment currently has no prospect of success owing to “lack of insight and motivation”. The convicted person reported no social contacts or ties other than regular telephone contact with his 16-year-old son.
Weighing these considerations, the court finds no favourable prognosis of law-abiding conduct.
Notice of remedies
An immediate complaint against this order is admissible within one week, to be submitted to the Berlin Regional Court I, Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
I challenged this order by an immediate complaint on the very day of service (chronology no. 162). In my view, the order impermissibly uses my actions seeking legal protection — hunger strikes protesting blocked access to the registry official, publication of documents, insistence on innocence — as adverse prognostic factors without establishing specific facts indicating a risk of recurrence or dangerousness. The finding of no social contacts also contradicts other prison documents in which those same contacts were used to justify a risk of escape.
Assessment of my political activities — the comparison
My political activities are assessed in several places: as “fighting the German justice system”, as “public self-presentation”, and in the judgment as a protest that did not bring “the attention not previously received”. I do not alter the wording of these documents. Beside it, I place what demonstrably occurred in those same years:
- 17.09.2021 — rally opposite the Russian embassy on the first day of the Duma election; the banner is seized on the prosecution’s orders. The proceedings are later discontinued under § 170 Abs. 2 StPO.
- 20.09.2021 — report about this in a national daily newspaper.
- 23.09.2021 — the Russian Federation names Unkremlin e. V. expressly in the Permanent Council of the OSCE (OSZE), under an agenda item introduced by Germany and the Netherlands (PC.DEL/1483/21, PC.JOUR/1336; complete source analysis →).
- 01./02.01.2022 — my vehicle burns; a journalist reports publicly on it and links it to my actions.
- 27.02.2022 — appeal to the European Parliament and the Federal Chancellor to supply arms to Ukraine.
- Spring 2022 — public appeal to form a legal group against Kremlin propaganda, based on § 80a StGB, with collection of evidence and complaints to the police and prosecution.
- 08.04.2022 — second statement by the Russian Federation before the OSCE, again naming it expressly (PC.DEL/526/22; complete source analysis →).
- July 2022 — protest camp opposite the Federal Chancellery.
- 12.11.2022 — public description of an observation at the Congress of People’s Deputies in Jabłonna near Warsaw, one month before my arrest.
- 20.06.2023 — the indictment is brought by the Prosecutor General’s Office in Berlin, rather than the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft).
My assessment is simple, and I formulate it as a question: if these activities were insignificant, why did a foreign State mention them twice within seven months before the OSCE, and why were the proceedings conducted at the level responsible for State-security matters? And if they were significant, why does the judgment say the opposite?
Evidence, facsimiles and references: What was public before the act · Background
Document source
Certified copy (original): Anlage_139_F2.pdf