“Ultimately, the owner of Nord Stream AG is Gazprom through its subsidiaries. The real beneficiary of this project is therefore the Russian Gazprom,” said attorney Tymoteusz Paprocki, the defense lawyer for Volodymyr Z., who is being prosecuted by Germany for allegedly blowing up the gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, on TV Republika.
The eyes of the world are now on the Polish court that will have to decide the fate of the Ukrainian accused by Germany of blowing up sections of the Nord Stream pipeline on the Baltic seabed.
Attorney Tymoteusz Paprocki, the defense lawyer for Volodymyr Z., pointed out several important details in Michał Rachoń’s program concerning the pipeline’s destruction.
First, he emphasized that his client is accused of “constitutional sabotage to the detriment of Germany.”
“The section that was blown up is not located on German territory. These are the territorial waters of Denmark,” the lawyer stressed, adding that only the consequence of the gas flow being stopped affected German territory.
“The charges appear absurd, and their legal construction is highly questionable,” concluded Paprocki.
Who really suffered losses?
Michał Rachoń reminded viewers that the headquarters of Nord Stream AG is located in Switzerland.
The defense lawyer for Volodymyr Z.. added that ultimately, the owner of the company is Gazprom through its subsidiaries. “The real beneficiary of this project is therefore the Russian Gazprom,” he emphasized.
Paprocki also pointed out that although there are Dutch entities among the shareholders, none of the companies from the Netherlands have filed any complaints so far.
The world is watching
Paprocki noted that although his client denies any involvement in the alleged act, he is taking care to protect his reputation by widely informing all interested parties about the case. He revealed on TV Republika that he has been receiving questions from all over the world, including from Brazil and Japan.
The lawyer also highlighted the unprecedented nature of the situation and the need to carefully examine each stage of the Polish court’s decisions, as they will have long-term consequences.
“Not only in the context of Poland’s image, but also in terms of the application of law, which in a broader sense relates to armed conflicts,” he observed.
He stressed that the Polish court, regardless of international agreements and the institutions of the European Arrest Warrant (ENA), “cannot ignore the geopolitical situation.”