Lawyers at the Nord Stream trial have argued in court that the bombing of the pipelines may not have amounted to a crime at all, according to a report by the Sowetan. The submission goes to the heart of the prosecution's case. If the defence prevails on the point, the charges could collapse before the evidence on sabotage itself is fully tested.

Who decided, and where?

The argument was raised before the court hearing the Nord Stream bombing case. The source report does not name the specific panel, the case reference, or the precise hearing date. What is clear is the posture: defence counsel submitted that the destruction of the pipelines may fall outside the conduct the relevant criminal law captures. The court has not yet ruled on the argument. It remains an open legal question before the tribunal.

The takeaway: the defence is attacking the legal foundation of the case, not just the evidence.

What does the defence argument turn on?

Criminal sabotage charges require proof of both conduct and criminality under a specific statute. The defence position, as reported, is that the bombing of the pipelines may not satisfy the elements of an offence available to prosecutors in this jurisdiction. That is a bold move. It asks the court to consider acquittal as a matter of law rather than fact.

Practitioners will recognise the technique. Defence teams in sabotage and terrorism-adjacent cases often test whether the charging provision fits the conduct alleged before litigating what happened on the seabed. Success on such a threshold argument ends a case without any factual determination of responsibility for the explosions.

The takeaway: this is a threshold challenge to the charges, not a denial on the facts.

Why does the Nord Stream case matter so much?

The Nord Stream pipelines carried gas between Russia and Germany across the Baltic Sea until a series of explosions ruptured them. The bombing ranks among the most consequential acts of infrastructure sabotage in modern European history. Multiple national investigations followed. Criminal proceedings arising from those investigations now test how ordinary criminal statutes apply to state-scale infrastructure attacks.

For legal observers, the trial is a study in the limits of domestic criminal law. Sabotage of undersea energy infrastructure sits awkwardly within provisions drafted for conventional property offences. The defence's submission that the bombing "may not have been a crime" pushes that tension into open court.

The takeaway: the case could shape how prosecutors charge infrastructure attacks for years.

What happens next in court?

The court must address the defence argument before the trial can advance to the evidentiary stage. If judges accept that the conduct may not be criminalised, the prosecution faces dismissal or a forced re-pleading of the charges. If judges reject it, the trial proceeds to the evidence surrounding the bombing itself. Either outcome will be closely read by prosecutors across Europe handling cross-border sabotage files.

The source report does not state when the court will rule on the submission, and no further hearing dates appear in the available material.

The takeaway: watch the court's ruling on criminality first; the facts come second.