Judge Hollering | Negative list

This page concerns participation in the order of the 2nd Criminal Senate of 18.08.2026 dismissing my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) against the refusal of early release. Structure: Fact – Evidence – Provision – Significance. The assessments are my own and do not replace a judicial finding.

1 The expert report is said to be unnecessary because the outcome is already determined

The Senate sees no objection to the Sentence Enforcement Chamber’s failure to obtain an expert report under § 454 Abs. 2 StPO: given the circumstances described by the Regional Court, 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 — feelings of anger, a sense of having been wronged, an urge for retribution. No item of evidence for these attributions is identified in any document in the proceedings. The only standardised measurement, LSI-R 20, points in the opposite direction and is no longer mentioned in any decision.

§ 454 Abs. 2 StPO · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: The unproven assumption becomes the reason why it need not be checked. Annex 194_F2 · Annex 137_F2 · The entire chain: which assessment comes from which source?

Alternative hypothesis Procedural economy: if a decision is determined by several independent grounds, no expert report need be obtained — this is common practice.

What is missing An identified item of evidence for the attribution from which suspension of the sentence is held to be “ruled out from the outset”.

2 The complaint concerning the right to be heard is rebutted with a document I do not know

The Senate denies a violation of the right to be heard “as shown by the note of the hearing on 24 June 2026”. The Sentence Enforcement Chamber had already relied on the same note.

This note has never been made available to me. In the appeal proceedings, I could not make submissions on a document whose contents remain unknown to me to this day. The reasoning that a violation would have been remedied under § 309 Abs. 2 StPO by my appeal submissions is therefore incorrect.

Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG · § 33a StPO · § 309 Abs. 2 StPO

Significance: Two judicial instances rely on a document the person concerned has never seen. Annex 194_F2

Alternative hypothesis A note is an internal part of the file; access to the file is granted on application, and such an application may not have been made at the time of the decision.

What is missing The opportunity to comment on the note relied on by both instances — Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG requires it.

3 Affirmation without an independent examination of the core issue

The immediate appeal is dismissed “for the correct reasons given in the contested decision”. The lower court’s order bases the negative prognosis on hunger strikes against denied access to court, the publication of my own documents, and my answer that I would continue my political activities. The Senate does not address this decisive reasoning.

Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · § 57 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB

Significance: This decision exhausts the domestic avenue of legal redress. On 01.09.2026, I filed a constitutional complaint. Annex 197_F2 · Dossier

Alternative hypothesis Reference to the correct reasons of the lower court is common and permissible in appeal proceedings if the Senate considers them correct.

What is missing An independent examination by the Senate of whether legal remedies and political statements were separated from the prognosis.

4 What I expressly do not allege against this Senate

On the lack of a public hearing, the Senate follows the prevailing view: § 169 Abs. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in sentence enforcement proceedings. I do not pursue this point further, and it is not included in the constitutional complaint.

Nor do I object to the lower court sitting as a single judge. Under § 78b Abs. 1 GVG, a three-judge panel is required only in cases of life imprisonment, Unterbringung (court-ordered placement in an institution) and Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention). I examined the suspicion and rejected it.

No personal allegation is made.

This page documents a decision, not a person.

Sources: Annex 194_F2 (order of 18.08.2026) · Annex 139_F2 · Annex 137_F2 · Annex 197_F2 · Case 2 chronology, Nos. 189, 192. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.