Finnish Appeals Court Revives Eagle S Prosecution Over Baltic Cable Breaks

Erik Berg

August 28, 2026 5 min read

The Helsinki Court of Appeal has revived Finland’s collapsed prosecution of three senior officers of the Eagle S, the Russia-linked oil tanker that dragged its anchor across the Gulf of Finland on Christmas Day 2024 and cut the Estlink 2 power cable along with four telecommunications cables. The court ruled unanimously on 27 August 2026 that Finland has jurisdiction to try the men and sent the case back to the Helsinki District Court to be heard on its merits.

The decision overturns a district court judgment from October 2025 that threw the case out on the grounds that the alleged offences happened in international waters. That judgment alarmed maritime lawyers across the region. Henrik Ringbom, professor of maritime law at Åbo Akademi University, said at the time that an indifferent flag state was now all a ship needed to keep breaking cables, “This means that no one can do anything about it. This is completely unreasonable.”

The Anchor Drop Was Accidental. The Next Three Hours Were Not.

The appeals court’s reasoning turns on one question whether the incident counted as a “maritime accident” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The defence argued it did which would have limited any prosecution to courts in the ship’s flag state, the Cook Islands or in Georgia and India, where the officers are from.

The court accepted that the initial anchor drop could be treated as accidental and would not have been prosecutable on its own. What came next was not. Finnish authorities contacted the Eagle S at 3.20pm on 25 December 2024 and the crew told them both anchors were raised and secured. That was false. The vessel carried on for roughly 90 kilometres with its port anchor on the seabed for more than 3 hours, severing four further cables as it went.

Armed police boarded by helicopter. The crew did not resist and Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation seized the ship on suspicion of aggravated criminal mischief. The court noted that only that intervention stopped more cables from being cut.

On jurisdiction, the court held that the offences were committed in Finland because the damage and its effects on Finnish power and telecoms supply landed there.

A Jurisdiction Ruling, Not a Sabotage Finding

The Eagle S case has been read from the start as a test of whether Russia is using its shadow fleet, the collection of up to 1,000 ageing vessels with opaque ownership that move sanctioned Russian oil under flags of convenience, to damage European infrastructure below the threshold of war. This ruling does not answer that question.

Officials in several countries bordering the Baltic and North seas have told Recorded Future News they are increasingly confident the cable breaks were accidental rather than directed from Moscow. The appeals court did not contradict them. What it found was that misreporting the anchors and sailing on for another 90 kilometres removed the crew’s protection under the convention, a finding about conduct after the fact, not about intent before it. Anyone citing this judgment as proof of sabotage is reading in something that is not there.

For grid and cable owners the useful part is the jurisdictional test. Finland got the case because the harm registered onshore, in its own power and telecoms networks. Damage assessments that document the effect on domestic infrastructure, not just the position of an anchor, are what give a national prosecutor something to work with.

Fingrid and Elering Want €105 Million

The judgment also put a number on the civil exposure. Fingrid, Finland’s state grid operator and its Estonian counterpart Elering, joint owners of Estlink 2, are claiming about €105 million from the three officers: €55.3 million in repair costs and €50 million in lost income. When prosecutors first brought charges in August 2025 they estimated repair costs alone at €60 million or more. Estlink 2 was out of service for about six months.

The court rejected in full a claim from the ship’s manager, Peninsular Maritime India, which had sought more than €680,000 plus further sums in dollars, dirhams and rupees to cover its litigation costs. Remaining cost disputes go back to the district court. Several secrecy requests were also refused including an attempt to seal the officers’ employment contracts. Some technical material about the cable stays sealed until 2050.

The Fitburg Trial Comes Next

Deputy Prosecutor General Jukka Rappe, who filed both sets of charges, told Finnish broadcaster Yle that the ruling matched the prosecution’s position and arrived at a useful moment. In June, prosecutors charged the captain and bosun of the Fitburg, a cargo ship that dragged a damaged anchor at least 130 kilometres along the Baltic seabed on New Year’s Eve. Those defendants deny wrongdoing and intend to argue, as the Eagle S officers did, that Finland lacks jurisdiction. Rappe has said the appeals court ruling will guide that trial. No hearing date has been set.

The Eagle S decision is not final. It can be appealed to Finland’s Supreme Court if that court grants leave, and the deadline is 26 October 2026. The three officers left Finland once their detention ended. Whatever the district court decides on the merits, giving it effect will depend on Georgia and India.