The pensioner who sailed into Russian waters for 40 seconds on the Narva River explained his actions by stating that the temporary control line was not marked by buoys. The court found his arguments convincing, reports Põhjarannik.
Early in the morning on May 19 of this year, a fisherman was sailing on his boat along the Narva River in the Alutaguse municipality when the border guard recorded his illegal crossing of the border. The boat entered Russian territory by 50 meters and remained there for 40 seconds. The Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) fined the man 480 euros, but the pensioner challenged this decision in court.
In his complaint, the man referred to the State Border Act, which states that in border water bodies, the state border is marked by temporary floating signs, and in winter — by signs placed on the ice. The government decree specifies that a floating border sign is a buoy or a post, and it must be installed in such a way that it is clearly visible on the water. The complaint argued that since there were no border signs, it was impossible to follow them.
The pensioner admitted that he was not 100 percent sure that he had not crossed the state border, but if he did, it was due to human error. According to him, it remains unclear how to act in the border zone in a situation where the state border or an equivalent control line is not marked on the water body by floating signs.
In court, the PPA insisted on its position: the pensioner crossed the border and should be punished. The department stated that unilaterally placing buoys on a temporary control line is impossible and recommended using navigation devices, as well as staying as close to the Estonian shore as possible.
According to the Viru County Court, the fact of the offense was confirmed. The court found that the man operating the boat did not exercise sufficient caution and diligence; however, at the same time, it recognized that this was a law-abiding member of society, a pensioner, whose violation lasted only 40 seconds. In the court's opinion, the fine of 480 euros was too high and, considering the aforementioned circumstances, unjustified.
Furthermore, the county court deemed it necessary to draw the PPA's attention to case law, according to which not every offense must necessarily result in punishment. The court annulled the PPA's ruling on the offense and terminated the proceedings in this case.
The county court established that the guilt of the person being held accountable was minor, that the extrajudicial authority did not take important circumstances into account when imposing the penalty, and that there was no public interest in punishing him. "Based on the above, the penalty imposed on the person being held accountable in the form of a monetary fine is obviously excessive," the court stated.
Considering the circumstances of the offense, the county court expressed confidence that in the future this person would be extremely careful and diligent when moving near the temporary control line and that he received a clear signal: any subsequent similar violations may not go unpunished.
Leave a comment