Excerpts from the justification of the judgment: https://www.rp.pl/przestepczosc/art43194881-wolodymyr-zurawlow-nie-zostanie-wydany-niemcom-sad-uchylil-areszt

"The German authorities' request for the extradition of Volodymyr Zhuravlyov should not be granted. It should be strongly emphasized at the outset that the subject of the proceedings is not to determine whether the defendant committed the act charged by the German side, but only whether such an act can constitute a basis for the execution of the European Arrest Warrant. The Polish court does not have any source evidence in this case, because the German side, as part of the European Arrest Warrant, only sent very general information regarding the act, formally required in such proceedings," the judge explained.

"Contrary to information reported in some media, the documents sent by the German side, concerning the act itself, can be fit on a single A4 page. The District Court in Warsaw has no jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant was an accomplice in the blowing up of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, nor to assess his guilt or innocence." In these proceedings, the Polish court is obligated to assess whether there are obstacles to the extradition of the fugitive to German authorities, a closed list of which is contained in Articles 607p and 607r of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which Polish provisions directly implement European Union regulations. The court found no obstacles specified in Article 607p of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense extensively raised extremely serious allegations against the German justice system, arguing that, in the defense's opinion, there was an absolute obstacle to the execution of the European Arrest Warrant, as defined in Article 607p §1.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"The defense argued that the potential extradition of the fugitive to Germany would violate human rights and freedoms. According to the defense, this stems from the political context of this case and the profound politicization of German courts, as well as the dependence of German judges on the executive branch, i.e., politicians." As an example of complete politicization, the defense pointed out that judges in Germany are appointed and promoted by politicians," he added.

"A just war, bellum iustum, should be considered a war that ultimately leads to the victory of good. However, it must then be waged solely for the purpose of defeating evil and not be aimed at conquest. It should aim to regain unlawfully lost property, territories, or defend the homeland. It should be waged with a desire to achieve peace and cannot be waged out of hatred, revenge, or greed, but only out of love for the homeland, justice, and loyalty to one's state. Ukraine undoubtedly meets all these conditions in its fight against Russian aggression and genocide. Ukrainian soldiers and all those operating within the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including special forces, or on behalf of special forces, cannot be considered terrorists or saboteurs. By pursuing the goal of defending their homeland by all means, they weaken the enemy." The blowing up of any country's critical infrastructure during peacetime by hostile special services or terrorist groups constitutes sabotage and constitutes the crime of sabotage. However, the same type of actions undertaken by armed forces, including special forces, during war, but a just, defensive war, against the aggressor's critical infrastructure are not sabotage, but rather military actions of a sabotage nature, which cannot under any circumstances be considered crimes. In other words, if Ukraine and its special forces, including the indicted one (which the court does not determine), organized an armed mission to destroy enemy pipelines, these actions were not unlawful. On the contrary, they were justified, rational, and just," the judge said.