In an action brought against Suomen Yritysrahoitus Oy (Y) on 30 August 1985, the Ministry of Labour requested the Court to confirm that the Ministry had a maritime lien as security for its receivable of FIM 42,642.70 over the vessel M/S Tainio, and to order Y to pay the Ministry's legal costs. The Ministry based its claim on the fact that some seafarers had been employed by Akiship Oy (A) during the same holiday period, first on a vessel owned by A, the M/S Akitrans, and then on the M/S Tainio, a vessel leased by A from Y. While the seafarers were employed on the M/S Tainio, A was declared bankrupt, upon which the seafarers' employment ended and their annual holiday pay from A fell due. The holiday pay had been paid from State resources under the Seafarers' Wage Security Act.

The Ministry contended that under s 5 of the Seafarers' Wage Security Act, as subrogee of the seafarers' claims, it had a maritime lien in respect of the entire holiday claim over both vessels. Y had transferred the ownership of the M/S Tainio abroad, and the vessel was renamed the M/S Airi. Following the lapse of the right to a maritime lien as a result of the transfer of the vessel, Y, as the former owner of the vessel, should be held personally liable for the amount claimed pursuant to the provisions of s 214(2) of the Maritime Act.

Y argued that the total holiday indemnity claims of FIM 42,642.70 and the maritime lien related to the M/S Akitrans only, and therefore the M/S Tainio could not be partly liable for them on the basis of the lien.

The Court of first instance held that, as the seafarers' annual holiday pay amounted to compensation for the seafarers' service, comparable to a wage claim against the shipowner, and related to the ship, such a claim under the Maritime Act gave rise to a maritime lien over the ship. Y had paid to the Ministry all the seafarers' annual leave allowances based on their work done on the M/S Tainio. Receivables based on work done on the M/S Akitrans, regardless of their due date, did not give rise to a maritime lien over the M/S Tainio. The Court therefore dismissed the Ministry's action. The Helsinki Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The Ministry appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Seafarers' claims against a shipowner form a single entity under employment law, whether or not the seafarer concerned has served on different ships of the same shipowner. Pursuant to s 212(1)(1) of the Maritime Act, seafarers' annual leave compensation claims enjoy the right of a maritime lien over the ship. However, when a seafarer is serving on different ships of the same shipowner, the scope of the maritime lien is limited, so that the seafarer's maritime lien applies only to the ship where the corresponding service has been performed. The seafarers in question thus had a maritime lien only over each vessel in respect of the amounts earned on it. Therefore, the claimed and overdue annual holiday compensation claims in no way gave rise to a maritime lien on both the M/S Akitrans and the M/S Tainio at the same time. Therefore, pursuant to s 223(1) of the Maritime Act, the M/S Tainio is not liable for the seafarers' annual holiday compensation claims in so far as they are based on their service on the M/S Akitrans.