This panel decided in my proceedings three times — on 12.02.2025, 17.02.2025 and 31.10.2025. In all three cases, the proceedings ended without a substantive examination of the episodes complained of.
1 31.10.2025: The subsequently added list of provisions was said not to form part of the operative part of the judgment
My appeal against the rectification order of 30.07.2025 was dismissed at the admissibility stage — on the ground that the subsequently inserted list of criminal provisions applied was not part of the operative part of the judgment and therefore did not give rise to Beschwer (adverse effect conferring a right to challenge). There was no examination of whether such an addition was permissible after the judgment had become final.
§ 260 Abs. 5 StPO · § 304 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: If the list is of no significance, it remains unclear why it had to be inserted a year after the judgment. If it is significant, I was adversely affected by its subsequent insertion.
Chronology No. 124 · the full chronology:
the annotated judgment, Annex 65_F2
Alternative hypothesis The distinction between the operative part and the reasons is an established procedural category; the Senate may have relied on a tenable, albeit strict, legal interpretation.
What is missing An examination of the fact that § 260 Abs. 5 StPO makes the list mandatory, regardless of its formal classification.
2 31.10.2025: § 306 Abs. 2 StPO treated merely as a Sollvorschrift
The same decision also dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) concerning the failure to forward the matter in time. The originating court’s obligation to submit it within three days was described as a Sollvorschrift — a provision prescribing the rule for the ordinary case — without direct procedural consequences.
§ 306 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: If failure to submit the matter has no consequences, any originating court can effectively suspend the statutory route through the judicial instances. This is the subject of my constitutional complaint of 27.11.2025.
Chronology No. 128Alternative hypothesis Classification as a Sollvorschrift without direct consequences accords with widely used commentaries on § 306 Abs. 2 StPO.
What is missing An explanation of what consequence exceeding a time limit could then have at all, if not this one.
3 12.02. and 17.02.2025: first unfounded, then outside jurisdiction
On 12.02.2025 (file reference 3 Ws 3/25, panel: Grieß, Walters, Brandt), the appeal concerning contact with the religious community was dismissed as unfounded without identifying the points raised. On 17.02.2025, the same Senate declared that it lacked jurisdiction in another matter and returned my documents instead of forwarding them.
§ 17a Abs. 2 GVG (referral instead of return) · Art. 4 GG · § 34 StPO
Significance: For a prisoner, the distinction is decisive: forwarding preserves the time limit, while returning the documents allows it to expire — and the way back leads through the court registry, to which I was denied access.
Chronology F3-037 ·
Access to court, No. 28Alternative hypothesis Different proceedings before the same Senate may produce different outcomes without implying a substantive contradiction.
What is missing Identification of the points raised in the first order — they are not listed there, although a finding of “unfounded” presupposes this.
Sources: Annexes 26_F2, 82_F2 · Order 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25 of 31.10.2025 · Order 3 Ws 3/25 of 12.02.2025 · Letter of 17.02.2025. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.