The District Court in Warsaw delivered a landmark ruling on October 16, 2025, marking a critical juncture in the international inquiry into the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Judge Dariusz Lubowski formally denied Germany’s application for the extradition of Ukrainian national Volodymyr Zh. The individual had been taken into custody on September 30, 2025, under the authority of a European arrest warrant issued by German authorities investigating the underwater explosions.
The primary justification cited for the denial was reportedly the generalized nature of the evidence and the inadequate legal argumentation presented by the German authorities. This lack of specific, actionable proof led the Polish court to question the validity of the request. Timoteusz Paprocki, the legal counsel representing the detainee, immediately hailed the verdict as one of the most significant moments in the history of Polish jurisprudence, suggesting it set a powerful precedent. Paprocki stressed that Ukrainian citizens should not face prosecution for actions undertaken while resisting an aggressor, simultaneously casting profound doubt on the fairness and impartiality of potential judicial proceedings in Germany. This judicial outcome underscores the paramount importance of procedural integrity and robust material evidence, especially when dealing with cases steeped in complex international and geopolitical tensions.
The political response in Warsaw was swift and decisive. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk immediately endorsed the court’s decision, effectively declaring the matter closed from Poland’s perspective. Tusk affirmed that he had previously conveyed his firm position—that handing over the suspect would run "against the interests of Poland"—to both former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The incident itself, involving the deliberate damage to the pipeline strings in the Baltic Sea near the island of Bornholm in September 2022, continues to command significant international attention and remains a flashpoint in European security discussions.
Significantly, this Polish ruling did not occur in isolation. Just one day prior, on October 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Italy also overturned an extradition ruling concerning another Ukrainian citizen, Serhiy Kuznetsov, who faced similar allegations related to the Nord Stream incident. These parallel decisions, occurring in major European Union jurisdictions, strongly suggest the formation of a distinct and cautious legal stance across the continent regarding such extradition requests, particularly those involving Ukrainian nationals accused of actions against Russian-linked infrastructure. German investigators suspect Volodymyr Zh. of having been directly involved in the placement of explosive devices, linking the act of sabotage to a specific pro-Ukrainian group, though they have consistently refrained from alleging direct involvement or sanction by official Kyiv.
The reasoning behind the Warsaw court’s decision offers a glimpse into the evolving legal perspective on the conflict. Reports indicate that Judge Lubowski specifically commented that an act of aggression against an opponent's infrastructure, carried out in the context of waging a "just, defensive war," might not constitute a criminal offense under certain interpretations. This judicial commentary signals a profound re-evaluation of the legal assessment of these events. By potentially framing the destructive act as a military action rather than a purely criminal one, the ruling reflects a significant shift in judicial perspective within Poland, acknowledging the broader context of the ongoing confrontation and prioritizing national interests over the immediate demands of a key European partner.