A Helsinki district court has ordered the Finnish state to pay a €70,000 collective fine for workplace safety violations within the Border Guard. The case involved two separate vessel sinking accidents that claimed three lives in coastal waters near Porvoo and Loviiisa.
The court found that Border Guard patrol vessels violated workplace safety laws. It identified deficiencies in risk assessment procedures. The verdict specifically addressed safety shortcomings in PV-class patrol boats.
In the first incident, a pilot boat capsized and sank during heavy waves off Porvoo in December 2017. Two people died when the vessel went down. The second tragedy occurred during summer when patrol boat PV 83 sank after hitting bottom near Loviiisa. The helmsman drowned in that accident.
Court documents revealed troubling details about the PV 83 sinking. The helmsman became trapped in the wheelhouse, which had only one practical exit according to accident investigators. The door suddenly submerged underwater as the vessel's bow rose rapidly, preventing escape.
Following the initial pilot boat accident, the Gulf of Finland coast guard station began reviewing vessel safety across the Border Guard fleet. Officials focused particularly on PV 08 class patrol boats, which closely resembled the sunken pilot vessel.
Safety upgrades came only after the second tragedy. Installation of emergency exit windows and emergency air systems occurred during 2021. This timeline raised questions about response speed.
The prosecution argued that both PV 08 vessels and the similar PV 83 involved in the fatal accident violated safety regulations before modifications. They contended the Border Guard should have included PV 83 in the original safety review and addressed identified deficiencies more quickly.
Border Guard officials defended their actions. They stated vessels had regulation-compliant exits and rescue equipment even before upgrades. The agency denied any deliberate delays, explaining that required preparation, planning, testing, funding and implementation proceeded as quickly as possible through headquarters.
The court reached a nuanced conclusion. It confirmed that PV 08 class patrol boats and the PV 83 violated workplace safety laws and had inadequate risk assessments. However, judges found insufficient evidence that the helmsman's death directly resulted from these safety shortcomings or that the Border Guard delayed necessary measures unreasonably.
Court documents highlighted organizational issues. Some workplace safety responsibilities were defined unclearly within the Border Guard. Supervision of risk assessment processes was neglected.
The ruling noted the Border Guard didn't consciously decide to act illegally. Still, headquarters management should have recognized regulatory deficiencies. The fact that no one observed or perceived violations of due diligence obligations indicates problems in how the Border Guard organized and monitored workplace safety.
The prosecution sought a €100,000 fine, but the court determined €70,000 better reflected the negligence's severity and the Border Guard's financial position. This case underscores ongoing challenges in maritime safety enforcement within Finnish authorities. It raises questions about whether current penalties adequately deter safety violations in critical public service operations.
Finnish workplace safety regulations require rigorous risk assessment, particularly for operations involving inherent dangers like maritime patrols. This verdict suggests gaps between regulatory requirements and practical implementation, even within government agencies responsible for public safety. The incidents highlight how organizational culture and clear responsibility definitions remain crucial for preventing tragedies.