Finnish Court Dismisses Baltic Cable Damage Case Against Eagle S Officers Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Helsinki Court Cites Lack of Jurisdiction in Baltic Cable Case

The Helsinki District Court on Friday, October 3, 2025, dismissed charges against the captain and two senior officers of the oil tanker Eagle S, who were accused of damaging five undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland on December 25, 2024. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the crew, stating that Finnish criminal law could not be applied to the incident. The decision marks a significant development in a case that drew international attention amid heightened tensions in the Baltic Sea. The Finnish state has been ordered to reimburse the defendants' legal fees, amounting to nearly 195,000 euros.

Details of the Alleged Incident and Charges

The Cook Islands-registered oil tanker Eagle S, believed to be part of Russia's 'shadow fleet,' was accused of dragging its anchor for approximately 90 kilometers (56 miles) across the seabed. This action allegedly severed the EstLink 2 power cable, which connects Finland and Estonia, along with four telecommunications cables. These included three cables linking Finland and Estonia, and the C-Lion1 cable connecting Finland and Germany. Prosecutors had charged Captain Davit Vadatchkoria (Georgian), First Officer Robert Egizaryan (Georgian), and Second Officer Santosh Kumar Chaurasia (Indian) with 'aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications,' seeking prison sentences of at least two-and-a-half years for each. The prosecution argued that the officers intentionally neglected their duties by failing to investigate a clear drop in the ship's speed and engine revolutions, which they contended indicated an external force affecting the vessel.

Court's Ruling and International Maritime Law

The defense maintained that the cables were severed accidentally due to technical faults in the anchor winch system and challenging weather conditions. Crucially, they argued that Finland lacked jurisdiction over the incident as it occurred in Finland's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) but outside its territorial waters. The Helsinki District Court concurred with the defense's jurisdictional argument. The court concluded that the incident 'should be classified as an incident of navigation within the meaning of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.' Under this convention, jurisdiction for such incidents typically rests with the vessel's flag state (Cook Islands) or the defendants' native countries (Georgia and India). Furthermore, the court found that the consequences of the damage, while causing significant financial losses estimated at tens of millions of euros in compensation claims, did not meet the statutory definition of criminal mischief or aggravated criminal mischief in terms of direct threat to Finland's energy supply or telecommunications.

Trial Proceedings and Aftermath

The trial commenced at the end of August 2025, with the defendants testifying in August and September. Throughout the proceedings, the accused denied any wrongdoing. Following the conclusion of the trial in September, the court lifted the travel bans imposed on the three officers, who have since departed Finland. The dismissal of the case highlights the complexities of applying national law to incidents occurring in international waters and underscores the role of international maritime law in such disputes. The incident had initially raised concerns about potential 'hybrid warfare' tactics in the Baltic Sea, though the trial itself did not delve into the question of potential Russian responsibility.