The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines was an “intelligence-orchestrated act of violence” carried out on behalf of a foreign state, and the ruling names Ukraine as the suspected client. The ruling is also significant because the BGH explicitly does not consider the pipelines a legitimate military target and emphasizes their predominantly civilian purpose. The BGH rejected the appeal against detention filed by the suspect, Serhij K., thereby upholding the position of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. (faz: 14.01.26)
Bombing – Why the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Sees No Justification as an Act of War
The defense sought to classify the act as an act of war sanctioned under international law, but the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe rejected this argument. Serhij K., through his lawyers, invoked combatant privilege and described it as a “legitimate act of harm by Ukraine” in the war against Russia. The BGH countered this argument with a clear assessment, denying the existence of a legitimate military objective.
The decisive factor for the court remained the purpose of the pipelines. Nord Stream primarily served civilian interests, and thus, according to the Karlsruhe court’s interpretation, no justification under international humanitarian law applies. This also has domestic political implications, as gas imports in Germany trigger long-term price and supply issues. Furthermore, the explosion is now considered an act of deliberate sabotage, because the judges assume it was carried out on behalf of a foreign state.
Ukraine, Detention, and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office’s Position
Serhij K. was arrested in Italy in August of last year and subsequently extradited to Germany, which is why the proceedings are continuing here. His lawyers challenged his pre-trial detention, but the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the appeal. This ruling strengthens the investigations of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, which accuses him of unconstitutional sabotage and other offenses.
A parallel case was being handled by Polish judges who reached a different decision. Wolodymyr S. was released from pre-trial detention in Poland in October, and the court rejected his extradition to Germany. His defense also argued based on international law, portraying attacks on vital Russian infrastructure as permissible. This creates a legal contrast, as the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office continues to pursue its assessment of Ukraine as the instigator in the German proceedings.
Nord Stream, Sailing Yacht, and Suspicion of Sabotage
In the course of the investigation, evidence emerged regarding the role of Serhiy K., reinforcing the picture of an organized operation. According to public statements, he belonged to a special unit of the Ukrainian army at the time of the incident. Roman Chervinskyi, his superior officer at the time, confirmed this in December 2025. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (F.A.Z.), Chervinskyi called the operation “a good thing,” but declined to provide details.
The Federal Prosecutor’s Office also describes the alleged sequence of events: The perpetrators are said to have rented a sailing yacht in September 2022, sailed to a sea area near Bornholm, and planted several explosive devices during dives. This scenario aligns with the Karlsruhe court’s classification of the operation as being carried out by an intelligence agency, making the explosion a central focus of the investigation. The Nord Stream issue remains relevant for Germany because every new assessment intensifies the debate surrounding gas imports and strategic dependencies.