By Grace Kim

Defence lawyers opened the Nord Stream trial by arguing that the bombing of the pipelines may not have constituted a crime at all, according to a report by the Cyprus Mail. The argument came at the very start of proceedings. It frames the entire trial.

The case concerns the explosions that damaged the Nord Stream gas pipelines. The trial has now begun, and the defence has placed the legal characterisation of the act at the centre of the contest.

What did the defence argue?

Lawyers for the accused told the court that the bombing may not have been criminal. That submission came in opening statements. It was not a denial that the explosions occurred. It was an attack on the legal basis for prosecution itself.

This is a threshold argument. If the court accepts it, the case could collapse before any examination of evidence about who did what. The defence is asking the tribunal to decide what kind of act the bombing was, in law, before deciding who carried it out.

The argument matters because criminal liability requires a prohibited act. If the conduct falls outside the scope of the charged offences, the remaining questions of evidence and attribution may never be reached.

Why does the opening matter for practitioners?

Opening submissions of this type signal the defence strategy for the whole trial. Rather than contesting the evidentiary chain, counsel is contesting the legal classification. Prosecutors must now prove two things. First, that the conduct fits the offences as charged. Second, that the accused is the person responsible.

That doubles the burden on the prosecution's early presentation. Practitioners watching the case should expect procedural skirmishing over the elements of the offences before any factual witnesses are called. The court's ruling on the classification question will shape what evidence becomes relevant at all.

The takeaway: the trial's first fight is over the law, not the facts, and the defence has forced that sequence from day one.

What happens next?

The court will hear the prosecution's response to the defence's characterisation argument. It will then decide whether the charges, as framed, can proceed. That decision is likely to come before the substantive factual record opens.

For now, the defence position is on the record. The bombing, counsel argued, may not have been a crime. The prosecution must now show otherwise.

The takeaway: watch the classification ruling first — everything else in this trial flows from it.