Germany’s Federal Criminal Court (BGH) has rejected an appeal against the pre-trial detention of a key suspect in the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage case, marking a significant development in the ongoing investigation. The decision, announced Thursday, effectively keeps the man incarcerated following his extradition from Italy in late November 2023.
The suspect is accused of playing a leading role as a crew member on a sailing yacht involved in the explosions that damaged the Nord Stream pipelines on September 26, 2022. Charges include acts of sabotage endangering the constitutional order, coupled with triggering an explosion and destruction of infrastructure – charges that carry substantial penalties if proven. The BGH’s Third Criminal Senate deemed the suspicion of involvement “highly probable” and that the risk of flight was sufficiently present to justify continued detention.
Crucially, the court’s ruling addressed potential legal defenses that could have been invoked. It firmly dismissed the argument of functional immunity – the notion that individuals acting under the direction of intelligence agencies might be shielded from prosecution – asserting that such a protection does not apply in cases involving acts of violence. Furthermore, the court rejected a potential justification based on international humanitarian law, emphasizing that the Nord Stream pipelines constituted civilian infrastructure, making any damage a violation of international norms.
The case has drawn significant international scrutiny, given the geopolitical implications of the pipeline attacks. The Federal Prosecutor General is heading the investigation, reflecting the assessment that the act potentially threatened the internal security of the Federal Republic of Germany. While the suspect’s identity and full operational details remain closely guarded, this rejection of his appeal underscores the seriousness with which German authorities are pursuing a case that has fueled speculation and geopolitical tension for over two years. The rejection also leaves open the question of who else might have been involved and the extent of any state involvement or direction that may have influenced the alleged perpetrators.
