6.8.2024

Finnish industrial company Decision to waive prosecution for an occupational safety and health offence

Related services

We assisted a major Finnish industrial company and two employees of its safety organisation in criminal proceedings concerning an occupational safety and health offence.

The accident occurred at a common workplace where several other employers were also operating at the time of the incident. During the criminal investigation, the police suspected, among other things, two employees of the company of having committed an occupational safety and health offence. The police also investigated the company’s criminal liability.

We examined the safety practices applied in the company and the common workplace, and the roles of the companies and individuals involved in the incident. We justifiably argued that our clients had acted diligently with respect to their duties. The prosecutor concluded that there were no grounds to prosecute our clients, so the prosecutor decided not to press charges against the company and its two employees.

Our team

Latest references

Finnish Broadcasting Company – Appeal in a defamation case dismissed by the Monegasque Supreme Court
We successfully advised the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Yleisradio Oy, and its Editor in Chief in a defamation case before all levels of the Monegasque judiciary. The case concerned four articles published by Yleisradio in 2022, two of which were in Finnish and two in English. The counterparty was of the opinion that the claims made in the articles violated his honour and brought defamation charges against Yleisradio and its Editor in Chief in Monegasque courts. In addition, he claimed damages totalling EUR 100,000 and demanded the removal of all allegedly defamatory content under penalty of a fine. We challenged the jurisdiction of the Monegasque courts in the matter, as the articles were not directed at a Monegasque audience and, contrary to what the counterparty claimed, jurisdiction could not be based solely on the fact that the articles were published in English on the internet where they were available for all and could be translated into French using a browser functionality. Furthermore, we presented comprehensive arguments stating that the facts presented in the articles were truthful, presented in good faith as required by Monegasque legislation, and based on thorough research. We also highlighted that the counterparty’s actions constituted so-called forum shopping, i.e. the desire to have the case heard in a court he believed would be most favourable to him. The claim was heard by all three levels of Monegasque courts, as the counterparty appealed the judgments of the lower courts. The courts of first and second instance had deemed that the Yleisradio articles in question were not directed at a Monegasque audience, and the Monegasque courts were therefore not competent to hear the case. The Supreme Court of Monaco (Cour de Révision) stated that there were no grounds to link the allegedly defamatory claims to the country. Even though it was possible to access the online articles from Monaco as well, this did not mean that the articles were published in Monaco. This being the case, the Supreme Court of Monaco deemed that the local courts did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case and dismissed the counterparty’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Supreme Court’s decision is fundamental in upholding the freedom of expression in Europe. The opposite outcome would have encouraged similar intimidation lawsuits in countries favourable to the plaintiff, with the purpose of restricting dialogue and silencing critical voices. The unpredictability of judicial power and the risk of extensive – and expensive – trials could create an atmosphere of fear and increase self-censorship of those exercising their freedom of expression, especially journalists, other media professionals and researchers. The decision also reinforces the principle that forum shopping is not allowed. The Supreme Court’s decision is final. 
Case published 17.6.2025
City of Rovaniemi – Former employees ordered to pay damages in an investment decision matter
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024
Finnish construction company – Decision to waive prosecution in an occupational safety and health offence matter
We represented a prominent Finnish construction company that was involved in an occupational safety and health offence matter. The company was the project supervisor and main contractor in a joint building site where a workplace accident occurred. The criminal investigation examined the personal criminal liability of the site manager employed by the company and the criminal liability of the company. We investigated and analysed the course of events, the actions of the parties concerned and the company’s occupational safety and health practices. In the final statement we argued that the company and site manager had complied with all occupational safety and health regulations. Based on our arguments, the prosecutor deemed that there were no likely causes to support the suspected offence, decided not to prosecute the employee of the company and waived the corporate fine claim against the company.
Case published 3.6.2024
Finnish forest industry company – Decision to waive prosecution for an occupational safety and health offence
We assisted a Finnish forest industry company as well as its management and supervisors in a criminal investigation concerning an occupational safety and health offence. Based on the arguments we presented in the final statement, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute the CEO and two employees of the company and waived the corporate fine claim against the company. 
Case published 17.4.2024
All cases