VRi Herb | Responsible parties

This page concerns two proceedings at the Kammergericht: the Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) concerning access to the court registry officer (5 Ws 17/26), and the appeal against the refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). Both have been decided; both appeals were dismissed.

1 Appeal on points of law concerning access to the court registry officer dismissed as inadmissible

By order of 12.06.2026 (file reference 5 Ws 17/26), my appeal on points of law was dismissed. The issue was whether I should have been granted an escorted visit to the court registry officer — an application of 11.06.2025 that was decided only on 04.11.2025.

§ 116 StVollzG (permission for an appeal on points of law) · § 345 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: The substantive question — whether a prisoner may be denied access to the court registry while time limits are running — has thus not been answered on its merits at any instance. Chronology No. 125 · No. 133

Alternative hypothesis The Senate may dismiss an appeal on points of law as inadmissible if it considers the formal requirements for permission under § 116 StVollzG unmet — regardless of the outcome on the merits.

What is missing A substantive examination of the five-month processing time for the original application, which could have been mentioned even in a dismissal on formal grounds.

2 Appeal proceedings 2 Ws 111/26

By letter of 15.07.2026, received by me on 21.07.2026, I was sent the Prosecutor General’s Office’s submission with a two-week period to respond.

The proceedings have been decided. By order of 18.08.2026, received by me on 25.08.2026, the 2nd Criminal Senate — Herb, Kupferschmidt, Hollering — dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) “for the correct reasons given in the contested decision”, at my expense. The domestic avenue of legal redress in this matter is thus exhausted.

My objection concerns circular reasoning. The Senate sees no objection to the absence of an expert report under § 454 Abs. 2 StPO because the possibility of Aussetzung (suspension of the remainder of the sentence) was said to have been “wholly remote” and “ruled out from the outset”. The circumstances supposedly establishing this are the attributes assigned to me in the diagnostic procedure of 17.04.2026, for which no item of evidence is identified in any document. An unproven attribution thus becomes the reason why it need not be checked.

And the Senate relies on a document I did not know: the note of the hearing on 24.06.2026. It was available to the Senate. The documents relevant to the decision were sent to me incompletely; I received the complete submission of the Prosecutor General’s Office only on 14.07.2026, twenty days after the decision.

What I expressly accept: The inapplicability of § 169 Abs. 1 GVG to hearings in sentence enforcement proceedings accords with the prevailing view. I do not pursue this point further.

Full text and assessment: Annex 194_F2 · the entire chain of the reused assessment.

§ 311 StPO · § 33 Abs. 3 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG

Significance: Sending the opposing party’s submission before the decision is precisely what was omitted in the preceding proceedings before the Sentence Enforcement Chamber. Lechner dossier, point 2

Alternative hypothesis The Senate could rely on the jurisdiction and the state of the file as presented by the lower court, without re-examining every attribution itself.

What is missing An identified item of evidence for the attributes assigned in the diagnostic procedure on which the prognosis for suspension of the sentence is based, and the complete contents of the file sent in good time.

Sources: Annexes 142_F2, 149_F2, 150_F2 · Order 5 Ws 17/26 of 12.06.2026. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.