Insights

Helsinki District Court ruled in early October that it didn't have jurisdiction over damage to undersea power and data cables in the Gulf of Finland allegedly caused by the captain and two officers of the Russia-linked oil tanker Eagle S. The Finnish state has to pay the defendants' legal fees, a sum of around 195,000 euros.

Incidents

The incidents occurred on 25 December 2024, the Eagle S allegedly dragged its anchor for nearly 90 kilometres across the seabed in the Baltic Sea, causing significant disruption to energy and communications infrastructure, including the Estlink 2, a key electricity link between Finland and Estonia. The damaged Estlink 2 was not able to be repaired until early August, 2025, with an outage period of more than 7 months and a cost of repair up to €60 million.

The Eagle S has been linked to the so-called “shadow fleet” used by Russia to bypass EU sanctions.

Charges

In August, Finland formally charged senior crew members of a Russia-linked Eagle S oil tanker suspected of damaging subsea gas and telecommunications cables between Finland and Estonia in December 2024. The incident, which occurred amid heightened tensions in the Baltic region following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, raised immediate concerns over the security of Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure.

The prosecutor had alleged that the crew allowed the ship's massive anchor to drag across the sea floor, breaking five undersea cables, . The prosecutor had demanded a minimum of 2.5-year jail terms for the vessel's captain Davit Vadatchkoria as well as shipmates Robert Egizaryan and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia.

The crew denied the allegations, attributing the incident to mechanical failure in the anchor winch system. They maintained that the anchor had dropped without their knowledge and that adverse weather conditions may have exacerbated the situation.

Reason for Dismissal: Lack of Jurisdiction

The Helsinki District Court confirmed that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. 

Furthermore, the court concluded after a six-month investigation and extensive testimony that the anchor loss was the result of a technical fault rather than deliberate action. While prosecutors contended that the vessel’s poor maintenance rendered the incident foreseeable, the court found no evidence of intent or gross negligence sufficient to support criminal liability.

The court stated that the alleged crimes were committed before the vessel entered Finnish territorial waters. It concluded that Finnish criminal law was not applicable, even if the incidents outside Finnish waters were determined to be intentional. Finnish authorities indicated that the Eagle S had voluntarily entered Finnish waters only after the cables were damaged.

In its ruling, the court determined that jurisdiction in this case lies with the courts of the vessel’s flag state—or with the countries of the defendants’ nationality.

The Eagle S is an oil tanker registered in the Cook Islands, and its crew consisted of citizens of Georgia and India.

As a result, the Finnish state is required to cover the defendants’ legal expenses, amounting to approximately €195,000.

Jurisdiction under UNCLOS

Mike Conradi, a lawyer at DLA Piper Technology published a post, The difficulty of bringing criminal cases for submarine cable damage – the Eagle S case

According to Mike, perhaps the most consequential aspect of the ruling was the court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the crew. Although the damage occurred within Finland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the court classified the event as a navigational incident governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS Article 97(1), criminal jurisdiction in such cases lies with the vessel’s flag state, in this instance, the Cook Islands, or the crew’s home countries (Georgia and India). The court held that Finnish criminal law could not be applied unless the damage occurred within Finland’s territorial waters (ie within 12 miles from the shoreline), a threshold that was not met in this case.

This interpretation underscores the limitations of domestic enforcement mechanisms when dealing with incidents in the EEZ, particularly where the flag state may lack the capacity or willingness to pursue legal action.