The plaintiffs A, B, and C argued that they were entitled to a salvage reward under Ch 16 of the Maritime Code for excavating three chalk pipes, one clay bottle, one seal, and one zinc ingot from the wreck of the S/S Vrouw Maria on 9 July 1999. Plaintiffs A and B further argued that they owned the wreck of the Vrouw Maria and, on that basis, also had the right to salvage the wreck and objects found both in the wreck and its vicinity, and to decide who would carry out these salvage operations. If the Court considered that the right of ownership of the wreck resided in the State of Finland, the plaintiffs asked that their salvage rights be preserved, as a matter of agreement, or by the right of first salvor, and that they be entitled to a salvage reward for the measures taken.

The State denied the plaintiffs' claims, and requested that they be rejected.

The District Court noted that Sweden and Norway had ratified the Salvage Convention 1989, whereas Finland had not yet done so. When ratifying the 1989 Convention, Sweden and Norway entered a reservation concerning wrecks under the Antiquities Act. This reservation reflected the desire to exclude wrecks under the Antiquities Act in these countries. The maritime laws in the Nordic countries are based on co-operation between the countries, and are based to a large extent on international agreements. In Norway, the amendment to Ch 16, s 442 of the Maritime Act of 24 June 1994 expressly states that the provisions of the Maritime Code concerning maritime salvage do not apply to ships and goods within the meaning of s 14 of the Cultural Heritage Act of 9 June 1978. There are no provisions in the Danish Merchant Shipping Act to extend the right to a salvage reward to shipwrecks. There has been no need for this due to the provisions of the Danish Historical Shipwrecks and Museums Act. The draft law amending the Swedish Maritime Act of 1996 provides that the Cultural Heritage Act, as a special law, supersedes the provisions of the Maritime Act concerning salvage rewards, which is considered to be a general law. Section 8(2) of the Cultural Heritage Act states that the relevant State authority may rescue a shipwreck within the meaning of the Act. According to the Cultural Heritage Act, the authority may pay a finder’s fee to the finder of the wreck at its discretion. The provisions of other Nordic Maritime Acts and Antiquities Acts (or similar) indicate that shipwrecks and goods found under Antiquities Acts were intended to be excluded from the application of salvage rewards under the Maritime Code.

Sjur Braekhus, a Norwegian expert in maritime law, and Erik Aagaard-Hansen, a Danish researcher, have criticised the fact that cultural heritage law gives the State exclusive control over historical shipwrecks. Prior to the abovementioned amendment to the Norwegian Maritime Act 1994, the relationship with maritime salvage provisions was not clear. The situation in Norway at that time corresponded to the situation in Finland now, when there was no explicit provision in the Norwegian Maritime Act for a salvage reward for historical shipwrecks. In Finland, Peter Wetterstein wrote in 2000 that maritime salvage rules and principles apply to historical wrecks and objects found in them, to the extent that the explicit restrictions of the Antiquities Act do not preclude this, and considered it necessary to include an explicit reference to the salvage provisions in the Maritime Code.

On the basis of the above, the District Court held by a majority that the provisions of the Antiquities Act, as a special law, precluded the application of the provisions of the Maritime Code concerning maritime salvage and salvage rewards to wrecks and objects found in, or apparently derived from, them. Thus, the plaintiffs, as finders of the wreck, did not acquire the status of salvors within the meaning of the Maritime Code vis-à-vis the State/National Board of Antiquities on the ground that the Vrouw Maria had sunk, or that the wreck and objects were in danger. This meant that the discovery of the wreck did not confer any privilege on the plaintiffs to carry out salvage operations if the wreck of the Vrouw Maria or its objects were ever raised, or to receive a salvage reward under the Maritime Code. It was a different matter if the State/National Board of Antiquities voluntarily decided to pay a finder's fee to the finders, or to authorise the plaintiffs to raise the wreck or the objects in it.

The dissenting Judge pointed out that Ch 16 of the Maritime Code provides that 'anyone who rescues a shipwrecked ship or ship in danger ... is entitled to a salvage reward'. This provision is based on the Salvage Convention 1910, which entered into force in Finland in 1923. The word 'shipwrecked' in the Maritime Code is not found in the Convention text, and is based on national law. Consequently, the concept of maritime salvage has been extended at a national level. In this situation, the ship no longer needs to be 'in danger'. It should therefore be clear that historical wrecks are in principle included in the concept of 'shipwrecked ships'. It has also been considered in the Nordic legal literature that the Maritime Code is applicable to ships and cargo that are forulykyk (shipwrecked). Rescuing and raising precious cargo located at great depths, or gold or other wreckage, are typical forms of maritime salvage (Sjur Braekhus, Bergning av Vrak og Vrakgods, 524). Nordic jurisprudence has also always applied the Maritime Code to wrecks and similar objects, a fact which has not been considered inconsistent with the Salvage Convention. The maritime salvage regulations of the Maritime Code also cover the rescue of sunken wrecks and the cargo contained therein. In the case of wrecks more than 100 years old, if it is considered that the State has become the owner of the wreck, a finder who salvages the wreck is deemed to be entitled to a salvage reward. If the wreck is not salvaged, for the reason that the National Board of Antiquities does not give permission to raise the wreck, because it has the right to make an 'express and legitimate' prohibition under the Maritime Code, a finder is only entitled to a finder's fee. Likewise, a finder who has rescued objects found in a wreck is entitled to a salvage reward, but even in this case the State, as the owner, has the option to deny salvage for cultural policy reasons, in which case a salvage reward is out of the question. The plaintiffs have therefore acquired the right of first salvor, which in the event of raising the wreck and cargo would entitle them to a salvage reward under the Maritime Code. However, in accordance with the Antiquities Act, the wreck and its cargo are protected for archaeological reasons. The State thus has the right under s 16(1)(2) of the Maritime Code to invoke a 'legitimate prohibition' which, in this situation, precludes the plaintiffs' salvage rights. While the question of raising the wreck and the objects in it remains unresolved, the plaintiffs' entitlement to a salvage reward remains dependent on the State’s decision as to whether the wreck and the objects in them will be raised. If it is decided not to remove the wreck or the material therein, any compensation to be paid to the plaintiffs will be determined other than on the basis of maritime salvage. The question of the plaintiffs' entitlement to a salvage reward is thus premature. If in the future the State decides to raise the wreck and the objects in it, the right of the plaintiffs to perform the salvage operation must be taken into account.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal. The State cross-appealed.

Held: The appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

The State has argued that the Antiquities Act supersedes the application of the Maritime Code. The Antiquities Act is a special law. On the other hand, the Maritime Code and its provisions on maritime salvage also have the status of a special law. Both laws are therefore special laws, and it cannot be inferred from their nature that the Antiquities Act would preclude the application of the Maritime Code, as the State claims. Chapter 16 of the Maritime Code provides that a person who 'rescues a shipwrecked ship or ship in danger or goods on board or something that has belonged to such a ship or goods' is entitled to receive a salvage reward. A shipwrecked ship which is not in danger may thus also be the subject of maritime salvage. The concept of 'rescue' is not to be understood, as the State argues, to mean that rescue always means rescuing from some danger. The Vrouw Maria is a shipwrecked ship within the meaning of the Maritime Code. The maritime salvage provisions of Ch 16 of the Maritime Code also apply to the wreck of the Vrouw Maria. Both laws must therefore be applied in the present case.

A and B have no ownership in the wreck of the Vrouw Maria. Pursuant to s 20(2) of the Antiquities Act, the wreck of the Vrouw Maria is owned by the State. Although there was some correspondence between the relevant parties, and the Maritime Museum has compensated the divers for their activities, it has not been established that a salvage agreement was concluded between the parties.

According to Ch 16, s 1(2) of the Maritime Code, a person who, contrary to the express and justified prohibition of the master of a ship, has taken part in salvage operations, is not entitled to a salvage reward. It is not disputed that the owner of a ship or other salvaged property also has the right of prohibition under the law. As stated above, the State is the owner of the wreck of the Vrouw Maria. It is undisputed that, under the Antiquities Act, the State also owns the cargo in the wreck. The right of prohibition also applies to the so-called first salvor, who is not placed in a special position with regard to the right to prohibit salvage in the Maritime Code. The question is therefore whether the State is entitled to prohibit the plaintiffs from rescuing the wreck and cargo of the Vrouw Maria.

The first salvor may carry out salvage against the will of the owner of the property to be rescued when there is a concrete danger at hand which necessarily requires rescue action to be taken. There is no such danger in this case. The wreck and its cargo have been lying on the seabed for more than 230 years. The wreck and at least part of the cargo were in good condition at the time of discovery, and can be expected to remain in this state for several decades. The wreck is at a depth of about 42 metres. It does not pose any danger to shipping. It is possible that objects may be removed from the wreck; however, the wreck is under radar and camera surveillance by the authorities. The wreck site is located offshore, so damage to the wreck due to anchoring is also unlikely. Nor do marine archaeological reasons require the immediate rescue of the wreck and its cargo. The State is thus entitled to prohibit the salvage of the wreck and its property.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court of 24 November 2005: Leave to appeal refused.]