Ausgabejahr 2026
Erscheinungsdatum 15.01.2026

Nr. 012/2026

Third Criminal Panel – Decision of 10 December 2025 – StB 60/2025

By decision of 10 December 2025, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed a complaint against an order for arrest filed by an accused who, following extradition from Italy, has been held in remand detention in Germany since late November 2025 as part of preliminary investigations being conducted by the Federal Public Prosecutor General in connection with alleged participation in the Nord Stream pipelines bomb attacks.

The arrest warrant issued by the investigating judge at the Federal Court of Justice on 18 August 2025 charges the accused with having a coordinating role within the crew of a sailing yacht from which divers operated to plant explosive devices on three of the conduits forming the Nord Stream pipelines and participating in their blasting on 26 September 2022. To that extent, the arrest warrant is based on the suspicion of the accused’s criminal liability for anti-constitutional sabotage committed concurrently with causing an explosion and with destruction of buildings and structures.

The Third Criminal Panel of the Federal Court of Justice, which is allocated responsibility for crimes against the state, deemed the objections raised against the arrest warrant not to be vigorous and affirmed both the strong suspicion of a criminal offence falling within the Federal Public Prosecutor General’s jurisdiction and the reason for arrest, namely the risk of flight. In its grounds the Panel stated that, as the investigations currently stand, it was highly likely that the accused was involved in the pipeline bombings and that he had in consequence at any rate made himself liable to prosecution for causing an explosion concurrent with the destruction of buildings and structures and the disruption of public services.

According to its decision, and contrary to submissions made in the complaint, the general functional immunity of public officials resulting from sovereign immunity under international law poses no obstacle to the Ukrainian accused’s prosecution in the event that he participated in the act of sabotage on behalf of a foreign state’s intelligence service. Such immunity does not apply to acts of violence controlled by an intelligence service.

Germany has territorial jurisdiction because the result of the offence – the pipelines being rendered inoperable – also occurred on German national territory, where the pipelines ended.

Contrary to the assertion made in the complaint against the order for arrest, it is highly unlikely that the accused can rely on the right to damage under the law of armed conflict (“combatant privilege”) as justification. Firstly, this does not cover covert activities by military personnel; secondly, the pipelines were civilian assets. The Third Criminal Panel left open whether there is thus any suspicion of a war crime under the Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) having been committed.

Finally, in the light of current knowledge, the Federal Public Prosecutor General has responsibility for prosecution because, according to the circumstances of the act, it was suited to undermining the internal security of the Federal Republic of Germany and because of the particular importance of the case.

Karlsruhe, 15 January 2026