The accused MA and ZB, with the involvement of LH, took part, with other unidentified individuals, in an organised group dedicated to importing, transporting, and selling cocaine in Europe. MA owned a yacht named the Oggi, which was registered in the British Virgin Islands. The accused sailed from Granada, in the Caribbean, rendezvoused with the rest of the group on the high seas, and took the cocaine on board, hiding it in secret compartments that had been created for the purpose under the deck. They then sailed to Europe. The Portuguese authorities intercepted the vessel and the defendants in the Atlantic Ocean off the Azores. The British Virgin Islands gave a verbal authorisation to the Portuguese navy and the Portuguese police to act in respect of the vessel. The vessel was then, by order of the judicial police, sailed by MA to Horta on the island of Faial, Azores, where 1,200 packages of cocaine were found and seized. The accused were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. They appealed to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, arguing, among other things, that the Portuguese State had no jurisdiction to intercept the vessel.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The place of the approach and interception of the vessel is located in the Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), outside the national territorial sea. In the EEZ, coastal States exercise their sovereignty and jurisdiction under the terms provided for in UNCLOS, translated into the right to explore, manage, and conserve the natural resources existing there, both living and non-living, from overlying waters to the seabed, seabed and its subsoil, including the exploration and exploitation of renewable energy resources from wind, waves and marine currents.

In fact, according to art 56.1 of that Convention, to which Portugal is a party:

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:

(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:

(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.

It is therefore a jurisdiction and sovereignty limited to those purposes and with the corresponding purposes and, as such, does not correspond to the classical sovereignty and jurisdiction identical to those exercised in the national territory.

The issue here is the crime of drug trafficking, which is governed by art 49 of Decree-Law No 15/93 of 22.1, according to which 'for the purposes of this law, the Portuguese criminal law is still applicable to acts committed outside the national territory ... when committed on board a ship against which Portugal has been authorised to take the measures provided for in article 17 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988'. It is beyond doubt, that in this case Portugal was authorised to take the measures provided for in art 17 of the United Nations Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 by the flag State of the vessel in question.

Article 4 of this Decree-Law, which defines which maritime spaces are under national sovereignty or jurisdiction, leaves no room for doubt about the Portuguese State's claim to such jurisdiction, expressly, in relation to the EEZ. And the general rules regarding the extension of maritime areas under national sovereignty or jurisdiction and the powers that the Portuguese State exercises in them, as well as the powers exercised on the high seas, which are outlined by Law No 34/2006 of 28 July, in no way contradict the foregoing.