In October we wrote a piece discussing the difficulties in bringing a criminal case for submarine cable damage, looking at the Eagle S case in Finland. Our colleague Pia Bräysy from our Helsinki office has informed us of the following update:
On 27 August 2026, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision on lack of jurisdiction and remitted the case back to the District Court for trial.
The Court of Appeal held that the matter did not constitute an “incident of navigation” within the meaning of Article 97 of the UNCLOS, as it was not comparable to a collision or other maritime accident. The Court acknowledged that the dropping of the anchor could initially be regarded as an incident; however, taking into account that the crew continued to drag the anchor for several hours after the authorities had contacted the vessel and requested that it verify its anchor position — and that the crew had misrepresented the anchors as being secured — the conduct could not be characterised as an incident within the meaning of the Convention. As Article 97 therefore does not apply, the courts of Finland have jurisdiction on the basis that the effects of the criminal conduct manifested in Finland.
For more details do contact Mike Conradi or Pia Bräysy directly.