Trial Over Narrowly Averted Explosion in Vienna's Leopoldstadt

Residents of a five-story apartment building on Leopoldsgasse in Vienna narrowly escaped a major disaster on February 11, 2025. This was revealed during a trial at the Vienna Regional Court involving a 25-year-old man who damaged a gas pipe while using a cutting tool in his apartment. According to the prosecution, this act created a dangerous air-gas mixture that could have led to an explosion with just a single spark.

The prosecutor emphasized that the timely response of the police officers who arrived at the scene prevented a catastrophic explosion or fire. Neighbors had alerted the authorities due to the man's erratic behavior, including destroying furniture. Upon arrival, the officers detected a strong smell of gas in the stairwell and promptly shut off the gas supply. They opened all windows in the man's apartment, and the Vienna professional fire brigade implemented further emergency procedures.

Expert analysis later indicated that an explosion could have occurred as early as 46 minutes and no later than 172 minutes after the gas supply was left unaddressed. The report warned that without a subsequent fire, the primary affected apartment would have been destroyed, potentially leading to structural collapse. If a fire had ignited, it could have escalated into an uncontrollable blaze.

However, the court found the defendant not criminally responsible due to his mental health issues. A psychiatric evaluation revealed he was suffering from severe paranoid symptoms, which impaired his ability to comprehend reality at the time of the incident, thus rendering him legally insane. The defendant, originally from North Macedonia, claimed that he experienced a sudden mental breakdown, feeling as if he were being attacked by unknown assailants.

During questioning, he mistakenly believed he was damaging a water pipe rather than a gas pipe. He had reportedly been working on the pipe days prior, wrapping the damaged section in cloth because of the odor it emitted. The man lived in the apartment for three days without realizing the danger he was in.

Given these circumstances, the court determined that the actions constituted negligent endangerment rather than intentional wrongdoing. This type of offense does not carry a penalty exceeding one year of imprisonment, which meant that the criteria for a more serious legal response were not met. Consequently, the prosecution's request to confine the defendant in a forensic therapeutic facility was denied.

The defendant, who had been held in pre-trial detention at Josefstadt prison and had received medication for his severe mental disorder, was released following the trial. The prosecution did not make any comments after the hearing.