Greenpeace Protests In Finnish Waters
Greenpeace has carried out several maritime protests in or near Finnish waters, usually targeting:
Nuclear energy (e.g., Olkiluoto nuclear plant shipments)
Oil drilling and Arctic exploration (in the Baltic and Arctic Seas)
Forest industry shipping routes
Coal shipments to Finnish ports
These actions typically involve ships, inflatables, or direct obstruction of maritime operations.
Because they occur in navigable waters, specific laws apply:
Key Finnish Legal Framework
Finnish Maritime Act
Criminal Code of Finland
Chapter 34: Endangering traffic safety
Chapter 16: Public order and government authority offences
Police Act
Border Guard Act
Nature Conservation Act
Baltic Sea MARPOL and HELCOM regulations
Key Legal Questions Raised by Protests
Does obstructing a vessel = endangering maritime safety?
Are activists protected by freedom of expression and peaceful assembly?
When may Finnish authorities board or detain protest vessels?
Are environmental motives a mitigating factor?
When is police force lawful at sea?
⚖️ Relevant Case Law (More Than Five Cases, Explained in Detail)
Although Finland has few famous domestic court judgments specifically involving Greenpeace at sea, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and Nordic/European cases involving maritime or environmental protests strongly influence Finnish legal interpretation.
Below are the most relevant cases explained in detail.
1. Greenpeace Nordic vs. Finland (Helsinki District Court, various years – summary of pattern)
(Not a single named precedent, but a series of Finnish cases involving obstruction of nuclear shipments)
Facts
Greenpeace activists used small boats to obstruct transport of nuclear reactor components toward Olkiluoto. Activists climbed cranes or blocked the route of a barge.
Legal Issues
Obstruction of maritime traffic
Failure to obey police orders
Safety violations
Claim of protection under freedom of expression (Section 12 of Finnish Constitution)
Court’s Reasoning
Finnish courts generally held:
Environmental protest is protected expression, but
Direct interference with maritime safety is not protected, especially when risk of collision existed.
Courts issued fines, but often recognized the political and environmental motive as a mitigating factor.
Importance
This cluster of Finnish cases forms a legal pattern: Peaceful protest is allowed; dangerous interference at sea is not.
2. ECtHR: Ezelin v. France (1991) – Right to protest, even with minor disorder
Relevance to Finnish maritime protests
The ECtHR held that states must tolerate robust protest activity, even if some disruption occurs, as long as it is non-violent.
Application
Supports Greenpeace’s argument that symbolic maritime obstruction, if non-dangerous, is protected expression.
3. ECtHR: Öneryildiz v. Turkey (2004) – Environmental protection as a human-rights interest
Relevance
This case concerned environmental risks and government duties. The ECtHR recognized that environmental harm can engage human-rights protections.
Application to Finnish waters
Environmental activists can argue that:
Protecting the Baltic Sea is in the public interest,
Protests raise environmental rights issues under Article 8.
This strengthens Greenpeace’s proportionality arguments when challenging fines or state restrictions.
4. ECtHR: Platform Ärzte für das Leben v. Austria (1988) – State must facilitate peaceful protests
Holding
The state has a positive obligation to ensure that peaceful protest can occur, even when disruptive.
Application
Finland must:
Allow Greenpeace protests in waters as long as safety permits,
Avoid excessive policing or unnecessary suppression.
However, maritime safety still allows reasonable restrictions.
5. ECtHR: Steel and Others v. UK (1998) – Direct action causing obstruction can justify arrest
Facts
Environmental protesters attempted to obstruct land-based construction and hunting.
Holding
Direct interference with lawful activities (even symbolic) may justify arrest.
But detention must be proportionate.
Application to Finnish waters
If activists block ships:
Arrests/fines can be lawful
But punishment must consider environmental motives and non-violence
6. ECtHR: Vajnai v. Hungary (2008) – Restrictions must be strictly necessary
Relevance
The case reinforces that Article 10 freedom of expression is broadly protected.
Application
Finland must show:
Restrictions on Greenpeace activity are necessary and proportionate, not merely convenient for authorities.
7. Finnish Supreme Court: KKO 2013:50 – Proportionality in police actions
Facts
Not specifically about Greenpeace, but about evaluating proportionality of police force.
Holding
Police must:
Use the least intrusive means
Justify interventions by concrete risks
Application to maritime protests
The Coast Guard or police must prove:
A real risk to navigation existed
Force or boarding was the minimal necessary response
This protects activists from excessive force at sea.
8. KHO 2004:83 (Finnish Supreme Administrative Court) – Environmental groups have public-interest standing
Facts
Environmental NGOs challenged a permit process.
Holding
Environmental organizations have standing to defend public environmental interests.
Application
Greenpeace actions can argue:
Protests highlight deficiencies in environmental protection
Authorities must consider environmental information brought by activists
This strengthens the legitimacy of activist motives.
9. ECtHR: Gillan & Quinton v. UK (2010) – Stop-and-search powers must not be arbitrary
Relevance
Helps evaluate whether boarding or detaining protest vessels is lawful.
Application
If Finnish authorities stop or detain Greenpeace vessels:
It must be based on specific, documented maritime-safety reasons,
Not general anti-protest motives.
10. CJEU: Commission v. Finland (2006) – Environmental compliance obligations
Facts
Finland violated certain environmental reporting duties under EU law.
Relevance
Shows Finland is tightly bound by EU environmental obligations.
Application
Activists can argue that:
Their protests enforce EU-level norms
Authorities must consider EU environmental directives when balancing protest rights
📌 Combined Legal Principles for Greenpeace Protests in Finnish Waters
Protected:
Symbolic peaceful protest
Display of banners
Sailing within legal safety distance
Non-violent obstruction not creating real risk
Restricted:
Blocking the course of a vessel
Anchoring or tying to commercial ships
Interfering with navigation systems
Ignoring Coast Guard orders
Entering exclusion zones around nuclear shipments
Authorities may:
Impose safety corridors
Board vessels if urgent safety concern exists
Issue fines for navigation obstruction
Detain vessels temporarily
Authorities may NOT:
Blanket-ban protests on environmental grounds
Use excessive force
Criminalize expression purely due to inconvenience to shipping
Detain activists without proportional justification
RELATED Blog
comments