The Federal Finance Court (BFH) in Munich has halted the confiscation and liquidation of the oil tanker “Eventin” a vessel implicated in Russia’s shadow fleet, raising critical questions about the enforcement of EU sanctions and the limits of German jurisdiction. The ruling, delivered in two interconnected proceedings, underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding the evasion of sanctions against Russia.
The “Eventin” en route from Russia to India in January 2025, experienced mechanical failure and was towed into German territorial waters, anchoring off Sassnitz on the island of Rügen. While the tanker’s cargo was already classified as sanctioned goods under EU regulations, the vessel itself was only subsequently added to the annex of the regulation listing ships suspected of circumventing sanctions. Following the incident, the main customs office ordered the seizure and subsequent confiscation of both the ship and its cargo.
The ship’s owners challenged the actions, triggering a suspension of the measures through a preliminary legal protection procedure. The BFH has now sided with the owners, citing doubts concerning the legality of the customs office’s actions. Central to the court’s reasoning is the ambiguity surrounding whether towing a disabled vessel into EU waters constitutes a violation of the sanctions regulation. The BFH questioned whether the regulation’s scope extends to actions occurring “outside” the EU, specifically concerning the “removal from the Union.
The decision acknowledges the necessity of considering international law principles, including the right of refuge – also known as the Nothafenrecht – which grants vessels in distress the right to seek safe harbor and the right of innocent passage. Moreover, the court highlighted the unresolved question of whether the sanctions regime permits the resumption of navigation for a salvaged vessel and its cargo.
This ruling presents a significant challenge to German authorities, potentially complicating efforts to disrupt Russia’s ability to circumvent sanctions through complex maritime operations. Legal experts suggest the BFH’s decision could trigger further scrutiny of sanctions enforcement strategies and necessitate a clearer definition of jurisdictional boundaries when dealing with vessels operating in international waters but impacting EU interests. The precedent set by this case is likely to be keenly observed both within the EU and globally, as nations grapple with the logistical and legal intricacies of enforcing sanctions in an increasingly interconnected maritime environment.