27.6.2023

The Finnish State – The Court of Appeal dismissed the action of Peter Fryckman against the Finnish State

Related services

We successfully advised the Finnish State/the Ministry of Justice in a declaratory action in which the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of businessman Peter Fryckman and confirmed the non-existence of an arbitration agreement.

Fryckman had filed for arbitration before The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in February 2018. The request was based on a claim that the Finnish Minister of Justice had signed a consent to arbitration between Fryckman and the Finnish State in the PCA.

The State denied the existence of an arbitration agreement in its response to the request for arbitration and refused to appoint its own arbitrator. The Secretary-General of the PCA deemed that the document titled ‘Declaration of Consent’ was too ambiguous and general in nature, and therefore he could not appoint an arbitrator for the State to an arbitration conducted under the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012.

After this, Fryckman requested that the District Court confirm the existence of an arbitration agreement between him and the Finnish State, under which disputes between the parties concerning tax and debt collection actions against Fryckman and his companies, as well as the resulting damages, would be settled before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.  However, the District Court dismissed this action because the consent signed by the Minister of Justice was general in nature, its content was unspecified, and it was unclear whether the consent was even a matter that could be arbitrated. Furthermore, the District Court deemed that the consent signed by the Minister of Justice and the plaintiff’s application for commencement of arbitration were not identical and reciprocal, and there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties as to the commitment to and content of the agreement.

Fryckman appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, but in its judgement of December 2022, the Court of Appeal deemed that there was no cause to amend the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal found that the expression of will in the document titled ‘Declaration of Consent’ had not been made in accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s procedure for presentation and decision-making. According to the Court of Appeal, due to this key fault in the Ministry’s procedure, the free-form expression of will by the Minister did not have a binding effect on the parties. The Court of Appeal remarked that the plaintiff’s actions bore characteristics of an intent to bypass the Ministry’s customary procedure for decision-making. The Court of Appeal also noted that the Minister’s expression of will was encumbered by deficiencies in arbitrability and the subject matter of the consent as stated by the District Court, and referred to the grounds stated by the District Court in other respects as well.

On 5 May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that no leave to appeal would be granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is therefore final.

Our team

Latest references

VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
International reinsurance companies – Ad hoc arbitration proceedings
We successfully represented a panel of reinsurance companies in an international ad hoc arbitration. The dispute arose out of a reinsurance treaty under the terms of which the reinsurers had reinsured a portfolio of risks underwritten by the cedent. The parties disagreed as to whether the reinsurance provided coverage for a certain loss that had occurred because of the market turmoil caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The case involved highly complex legal and contractual questions requiring special expertise on reinsurance law and practice. The arbitral tribunal rejected the counterparty’s claims for reinsurance compensation against our clients in full. The amount in dispute was approximately EUR 34 million.
Case published 16.9.2025
Trety –  Dispute and settlement negotiations concerning a development and production agreement
We successfully represented Trety AB in a dispute and settlement negotiations concerning an agreement for development and production of communication devices for the healthcare sector. Eventually, the parties reached an amicable settlement to the full satisfaction of our client and thus the parties avoided an extensive arbitral proceeding. Trety AB is a global company that provides its customers with solutions for development, industrialization and production of electronics. Trety AB has over 30 years’ experience from IT, electronics and telecommunication industries.
Case published 11.2.2025
Finnish manufacturing company – Arbitration proceedings under the SCC rules
We successfully represented a Finnish manufacturing company in arbitration proceedings under the SCC rules against a global construction company. The dispute was governed by Finnish law and the seat of arbitration was Stockholm, Sweden. The dispute mainly concerned the termination of an erection contract and the right to compensation for delays of the project and for cost increases due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The main questions in dispute were the lawfulness of the termination of the erection contract as well as the consequences of the termination such as the right to costs to complete the project after termination, the right to liquidated damages for delay of the project and adjustment of contract price due to cost increases. The total value of the dispute exceeded EUR 15 million.
Case published 8.1.2025
All cases