Justice: Important decision in the Nord Stream process pending

Representatives for the operators of the Nord Stream pipelines have been granted access to sensitive investigation files in the ongoing trial against Serhiy K., a 50-year-old Ukrainian national accused of leading the sabotage of the gas infrastructure. This disclosure emerged during the second day of proceedings at the Higher Regional Court in Hamburg, where the defendant appeared with a smile and saluted the well-attended public gallery. The defense expressed concern over this move, noting that such access had previously been denied to them during extradition procedures. The court is currently considering a motion filed by the defense to dismiss the case entirely. A court spokesperson stated that prosecutors were given the opportunity to respond to the defense’s request before the judges would deliberate. If the dismissal is rejected, the tribunal plans to hear testimony from a federal criminal police expert regarding the extent of damage to the pipelines and the specific cause of the explosions. Serhiy K., identified in some reports as Serhij Kuznezov, faces charges including war crimes, causing an explosion, destroying structures, and disrupting public operations. Prosecutors allege that he led a seven-person team while serving in a special unit of the Ukrainian armed forces. According to the indictment, the group loaded explosives onto pipeline sections from the deck of the yacht Andromeda and triggered the blasts using time-delayed detonators. The attack occurred on September 26, 2022, at a depth of approximately 80 meters on the seabed of the Baltic Sea near the Danish island of Bornholm. Four leaks resulted in three of the four lines comprising the Nord Stream 1 and 2 systems. The defense has vigorously contested the narrative presented by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. They argue there is no evidence proving their client played a leading role in the incident. Specifically, lawyers pointed out the absence of fingerprints, DNA traces, or witness statements placing him aboard the Andromeda, which was rented in Rostock. Furthermore, the defense challenged the classification of the pipelines as civilian targets. They noted that Russia had halted gas flow through Nord Stream 1 roughly three weeks prior to the attack, citing technical issues, while Nord Stream 2 had never entered operation due to political disputes following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, the defense argued that President Vladimir Putin used the pipelines as leverage against the European Union to seek sanctions relief, rendering them non-civilian objects under international law. Additionally, the defense highlighted that their client, a former officer bound by secrecy obligations, could not fully defend himself or brief his legal team without violating professional duties. On the civil side, the operators Nord Stream AG and Nord Stream 2 AG have filed a claim for damages within the criminal proceeding. These entities are subsidiaries of the Russian state-owned conglomerate Gazprom, holding stakes of 51 percent and 100 percent respectively. Their attorneys requested 50,000 euros, describing it as a moderate partial sum of total damages estimated at over half a billion euros. They sought this amount via an adhesion application to avoid overwhelming the defendant financially and to prevent the criminal trial from being burdened by complex proof of exact losses. Previously, the companies failed in an attempt to join the case as auxiliary plaintiffs, arguing they suffered existential harm. The court did not accept this status, leaving the adhesion route as their primary avenue for civil recovery, though it offers less influence over the trial process compared to plaintiff status. The revelation that the prosecution allowed the pipeline representatives to review the investigative file sparked criticism from the defense. Lawyer Nicola Canestrini confirmed the access, stating it was unclear when and to what extent it was granted. He contrasted this with the situation during the extradition of his client from Italy to Germany, where neither the defense nor the Italian courts were permitted to view the files. His colleague Jes Meyer-Lohkamp emphasized the danger facing the defendant and his family since the events began. The trial represents one of the most prominent sabotage cases in German post-war history, with the accused standing trial for acts alleged to have occurred four years ago. The court’s decision on the dismissal motion will determine whether the case proceeds to expert testimony on the physical damage and explosive mechanisms.