The High Court of England and Wales has dismissed a €580 million insurance claim brought by Nord Stream AG, the operator of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, over the sabotage of the infrastructure in September 2022.

The ruling rejects the claim brought by Nord Stream AG, in which Russian state energy giant Gazprom holds a majority stake, against a consortium of insurers led by Lloyd’s Insurance Company and Arch Insurance.

According to an analysis by the Financial Times, the decision allows the underwriters to avoid paying out what would have been one of the largest compensation claims in the history of global infrastructure insurance.

In her judgment, High Court Judge Claire Moulder ruled that the destruction of the pipelines was directly linked to the war between Russia and Ukraine. Consequently, she determined that the damage fell under the war exclusion clauses stipulated in the insurance policies.

The court noted that establishing the precise identity of the actor behind the sabotage was not a decisive factor in resolving the insurance dispute.

“It is not necessary to determine who the most likely perpetrator of the sabotage was,” Justice Moulder emphasized in the ruling.

The written judgment examined four potential scenarios regarding who might have been behind the attack. The potential perpetrators identified included Russia, Ukraine, Ukrainian-linked non-state actors, or the US. The court concluded that under all of these scenarios, the war remained the dominant cause of the sabotage.

“Even if any of the potential perpetrators carried out the sabotage, the war must be considered a ‘significant cause’ of this action,” the document stated. The judge emphasized that she was not making a definitive finding regarding the culpability of any specific nation.

The ruling further noted that the fact that neither Moscow, Kyiv, nor Washington had claimed responsibility for the attack did not sever the causal link between the war and the strike.

The reasoned judgment also analyzed the potential motivations each actor might have had for carrying out the operation. If the sabotage was executed by Ukraine or Ukrainian-linked forces, the primary objective would likely have been to reduce Russia’s gas export revenues and weaken the Russian economy during the war.

In the event that Russia was behind the act, the ruling suggested Moscow’s motivation would have been to exert pressure on Germany and the European Union, punish them for shifting their policies following the military invasion, and influence their support for Kyiv.

Under the scenario involving potential US participation, the operation would likewise have been directly related to the Russia-Ukraine war.

The court noted that experts appointed by both parties agreed on the technical aspects of the attack. According to expert reports, the damage that disabled three of the pipeline’s four lines was carried out using hexogen-based shaped charges.

Nord Stream AG’s claim that the damage to the fourth line might have been caused by a dropped anchor was rejected by the court. Agreeing with the insurers’ defense, the court accepted that this damage was also largely the result of the same explosion.

Separately, the German Federal Prosecutor General’s Office issued its first arrest warrant in July as part of its investigation into the pipeline sabotage.

According to investigative authorities, the operation was coordinated by Sergey Kuznetsov, a 50-year-old Ukrainian citizen.

Six other Ukrainian citizens, including professional divers and explosives experts, are also alleged to have participated in the sabotage operation.

The European Union is planning to delay the launch of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)—which will require citizens of visa-exempt countries to obtain electronic travel authorization before entering the Schengen area—until 2027.

According to a report by the Financial Times, which cited sources close to the matter, the decision has been driven by ongoing disruptions in the currently active biometric registration system and resulting congestion at airports.

EU-Lisa, the EU agency responsible for the technical infrastructure and installation of the system, determined that the previously set target of late 2026 is unrealistic under current conditions.

The agency’s management discussed the delay in mid-June and aims to finalize the new schedule in September after reassessing technical preparedness.

The final entry-into-force date will be determined by the European Commission following the completion of testing within EU-Lisa.

Technical disruptions persist in the current system

An unnamed source highlighted the pressure on the Entry/Exit System (EES) currently in use at Schengen borders, warning: “Let us not establish a new mechanism that will double the workload at border crossings before fully streamlining the EES system.”

The EES, an electronic registration system that replaced passport stamping at border crossings, was fully deployed across the Schengen area in April of this year.

The system, which takes photographs and records fingerprints of non-EU travelers upon their first entry, has caused long wait times and technical lockups at airports.

Industry representatives, including ACI Europe, Airlines for Europe (A4E), and IATA, have petitioned the European Commission to suspend biometric checks during peak hours, while airlines are advising passengers to arrive at airports at least three hours before their flights.

Infrastructure and staffing shortages complicate the process

In a letter sent to airline executives, Magnus Brunner, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, indicated that the delays do not stem solely from software issues.

Brunner stated that a lack of border personnel and physical infrastructure to accommodate the new systems in many member states is also negatively impacting the process.

The ETIAS project, the foundations of which were laid in 2018, aims to run security screenings on visa-free travelers planning short-term tourist or business visits to the Schengen area.

Under the planned system, travelers will apply online prior to their trip by paying a fee of 20 euros, and their personal data will be subjected to automated checks against security databases.

Jim O’Neill, the economist who famously coined the term “BRIC” and now serves as an adviser to prime-minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham, has criticized the United Kingdom’s long-standing over-reliance on the United States.

O’Neill, who served as a Treasury minister in the Conservative government between 2015 and 2016, said London operates under “a philosophy of life that teaches you must always side with the US, no matter what.”

The former Goldman Sachs chief economist is “informally advising” Burnham, who is expected to become prime minister later this month. However, O’Neill told POLITICO that he has not been offered any formal role.

Twenty-five years ago, as a Goldman Sachs economist, O’Neill created the “BRIC” acronym to represent the fast-growing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. He argued that the UK must now diversify its trade network after dealing with an “unstable” Donald Trump administration for two years:

“The first 18 months of Trump’s second term are finally giving them a bit of a shake-up. They are thinking, ‘Actually, we can’t rely on these guys like we used to.’ But they assume this is just a temporary phase, that the US will soon return to a more sensible stance, and that everything will go back to normal. This is a kind of wake-up call.”

The former minister, who currently sits as an independent crossbench peer in the House of Lords, suggested that Britain must remain open to expanding trade with countries such as China. “We must be clear and consistent about the values we actually defend,” O’Neill added.

Speaking ahead of the launch of a new think tank, the BRICS+ Thinking platform, O’Neill is expected to be one of the key voices shaping the pursuit of economic growth as Burnham seeks to revitalize the Labour Party.

However, the economist expressed doubt over whether he would accept a formal role even if one were offered.

Addressing reports that he had been offered a position at Downing Street, O’Neill said: “Whoever first leaked that story, it is complete nonsense. I am not sure if I would accept an offer. It depends. I have a lot of things I would have to give up.”

O’Neill remains hopeful that Burnham can counter critics who complain that his political and economic philosophy of “Manchesterism” is insufficiently defined:

“I think Andy’s first few weeks are going to be very exciting. Let’s see. As I often tell his team, once you put your hand up, you have to want to do it.”

O’Neill added that Burnham possesses “very good intuition,” noting: “He knows the streets very well. People in Whitehall and Westminster often live in their own little bubbles. Andy can handle the streets, and that in itself is really important.”

As the founder of the new BRICS+ Thinking platform—which aims to bring together expertise in economics and trade—O’Neill called for greater cooperation between the UK and emerging economies. He asserted that the UK “failed to listen to these countries during the decade in which the nation decided to leave the European Union.”

O’Neill also stated that he would support rejoined EU membership under the right conditions:

“Yes, I would support [rejoining], but I think it is crucial that some leaders in this country finally wake up and take serious action regarding the deeper issues affecting so many people who want to blame something for not receiving a share of prosperity over the last 30 to 40 years.”

However, O’Neill emphasized that “the conditions must be right” for any rapprochement with the EU.

While the Starmer government has made significant efforts to strengthen ties with the EU, O’Neill described his own stance as that of a “moderate Remainer,” arguing:

“Economically, I thought leaving was a crazy decision, but I also believed that the shock of such a decision could both wake us up to important domestic issues and allow the UK to take a truly bold path… by adopting a realistic stance.”