# Hamburg court refuses to drop Nord Stream sabotage case against Sergei Kuznetsov

*Wednesday, October 28, 2026 at 6:15 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-10-28T06:15:35.233Z (2h ago)
**Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Europe
**Importance**: 8/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/21758.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg has rejected a defence move to dismiss criminal charges against Sergei Kuznetsov, who is accused of sabotaging the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Kuznetsov says he served in Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces at the time and can’t testify because of a non‑disclosure agreement, but judges ruled that the case should proceed.

Germany’s investigation into the Nord Stream gas pipeline blasts is moving further into open court after a key legal challenge failed.

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg has turned down a request from the defence to drop criminal charges against Sergei Kuznetsov. He is accused of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines, a high‑profile attack that cut a major natural gas route in the Baltic Sea and triggered prolonged argument over who was responsible.

Kuznetsov has argued that he was serving in Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces at the time of the incident and is bound by a non‑disclosure agreement that prevents him from giving testimony. His lawyers said this made it impossible for him to defend himself properly in public proceedings and urged the court to halt the case. The judges rejected that claim, keeping the indictment in place.

The ruling signals that Hamburg’s court isn’t prepared to accept an asserted foreign special‑forces role as a reason to stop the trial altogether. For Kuznetsov, it means he now faces the prospect of a full criminal process in a case that carries both legal and political weight, while his stated obligation to remain silent clashes with the court’s need for evidence.

For Germany, the decision keeps pressure on its institutions to clarify, as far as possible, what happened to critical energy infrastructure that once played a central part in its gas supply strategy. Any findings that touch on Ukrainian involvement, or rule it out, would have implications for relations between Berlin and Kyiv.

The case also highlights a broader question for states that host allied personnel: how far secrecy commitments given to special‑operations forces can shield them from answering in court when accused of serious crimes affecting another country’s infrastructure.

Next steps to watch include whether Kuznetsov’s lawyers seek a further appeal, whether Ukrainian authorities comment on his claimed service in their Special Operations Forces, and how German prosecutors handle any classified material that could be relevant to the proceedings.