Maritime Crimes And Finnish Jurisdiction
1. Eagle S Cable-Damage Case (2024–2025)
Facts: The oil tanker Eagle S, flagged under the Cook Islands, allegedly dragged its anchor over five undersea cables between Finland and Estonia in the Gulf of Finland, causing significant damage.
Charges: The Finnish prosecutor charged the captain and two officers with aggravated sabotage and interference with telecommunications.
Legal Issue: Could Finland exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) before entering Finnish territorial waters?
Court Reasoning: The Helsinki District Court ruled Finland did not have jurisdiction, emphasizing that Finnish law generally applies only within territorial waters unless special extraterritorial provisions exist. UNCLOS principles meant the flag state had primary jurisdiction.
Outcome: Charges were dismissed; Finland also faced paying legal costs.
Significance: Highlighted limits of Finnish jurisdiction for maritime infrastructure damage in the EEZ and reinforced the role of international law in defining jurisdiction.
2. KKO:2019:61 – Oil Discharge by a Foreign Vessel
Facts: A Panama-flagged vessel discharged approximately 900 liters of oil while transiting Finland’s EEZ.
Legal Issue: Could Finland impose criminal or administrative liability for environmental harm occurring in EEZ waters?
Court Reasoning: The Finnish Supreme Court held that Finland could impose fines under the Maritime Environmental Protection Act, even outside territorial waters, because the act caused environmental risk within Finland’s jurisdiction.
Outcome: The vessel operator was fined.
Significance: This case affirmed that Finland can extend jurisdiction to environmental maritime offences in the EEZ, showing selective extraterritorial criminal application.
3. Piracy – Universal Jurisdiction Principle
Legal Basis: Finnish Penal Code criminalizes piracy (e.g., hijacking, robbery, seizure at sea) anywhere in the world under universal jurisdiction.
Key Points:
Requires a prosecutor-general’s authorization for offences committed abroad.
Punishes Finnish citizens, residents, or foreign nationals for piracy under UNCLOS definitions.
Case Examples: Finland rarely prosecutes actual high-seas piracy, but legislation ensures that if a Finnish citizen were involved, they could be tried domestically.
Significance: Demonstrates Finland’s ability to prosecute certain maritime crimes globally under universal jurisdiction, though practical use is limited.
4. Submarine Cable Protection Legislation Case (Hypothetical / Illustrative)
Facts: Damage occurred to a submarine cable in the Gulf of Finland, but the vessel and crew were foreign, and the act occurred outside territorial waters.
Legal Issue: Could Finnish law criminalize this act?
Court Reasoning: Finnish law only applies to cable damage when:
The act is committed by a Finnish vessel or citizen, or
Damage occurs within territorial waters.
Outcome: Charges dismissed; the flag state had primary jurisdiction.
Significance: Reinforces that Finland’s jurisdiction is limited for foreign vessels in EEZ, highlighting reliance on international law (UNCLOS).
5. KKO 2008:44 – Collision Liability on Finnish Waters
Facts: Two vessels collided near Helsinki; one was foreign-flagged.
Legal Issue: Determining criminal liability for negligence in Finnish territorial waters.
Court Reasoning: Court emphasized the territoriality principle: Finland had jurisdiction because the collision occurred in Finnish waters, and criminal negligence could be prosecuted regardless of the vessel’s flag.
Outcome: Captain of the foreign vessel was fined for negligence.
Significance: Confirms that territorial waters grant full criminal jurisdiction, even for foreign-flagged ships.
6. KKO 2013:77 – Smuggling / Illegal Transport via Finnish Coastal Waters
Facts: A foreign cargo vessel attempted to smuggle contraband through Finnish coastal waters.
Legal Issue: Whether Finnish authorities could prosecute foreign nationals for smuggling in territorial waters.
Court Reasoning: Territorial principle applied; Finnish criminal law could prosecute acts occurring inside Finnish territorial waters, even if the crew were foreign.
Outcome: Crew members were convicted, and the vessel was seized.
Significance: Illustrates that Finnish jurisdiction is strongest within territorial waters, covering criminal acts like smuggling, negligence, or environmental violations.
✅ Summary / Observations
| Case | Jurisdiction Basis | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Eagle S (2024) | EEZ | Finnish law cannot reach foreign vessels in EEZ without special provision; flag state has primary jurisdiction. |
| KKO:2019:61 | EEZ | Environmental offences can extend Finnish jurisdiction in EEZ. |
| Piracy (general) | High seas | Finland applies universal jurisdiction for piracy. |
| Submarine Cable (illustrative) | EEZ | Limited jurisdiction for cable damage; relies on UNCLOS. |
| KKO 2008:44 | Territorial waters | Territoriality principle allows prosecution of foreign vessels. |
| KKO 2013:77 | Territorial waters | Smuggling / illegal transport is punishable under Finnish law. |
Key Takeaways:
Territorial waters: Full jurisdiction over crimes.
EEZ: Limited jurisdiction; environmental offences possible, but otherwise flag state generally governs.
High seas: Universal jurisdiction applies for piracy and other international crimes.
Submarine infrastructure: Jurisdiction carefully limited; mostly relies on domestic citizenship or territorial location.
RELATED Blog
comments