In recent years, Finnish courts have handled a number of landmark cases dealing with competition damages. The trials have involved the state, municipalities, companies and individuals claiming compensation for harm that they allege to have suffered due to a cartel, predatory pricing or other competition infringements. What makes the cases interesting is that the courts have had to resolve questions that are not directly answered by law.
23.9.2019
Competition Damages Cases Set New Precedents
Ilona Karppinen
Did the Infringement Cause Harm?
One of the crucial questions in competition damages cases is whether the competition infringement actually caused harm to the claimants. In Finland’s largest competition damages trial to date, Metsähallitus (an entity managing state-owned forests) claimed damages in the original amount of approximately EUR 283 million from the forest industry companies Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on the Market Court’s ruling on a competition infringement in the roundwood market. In addition to extensive factual evidence, the parties submitted a significant volume of economic expert reports on the impact of the infringement. The Helsinki District Court and the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed Metsähallitus’ claims because the competition infringement had not been shown to have had an effect on the prices of roundwood agreed between the parties. The Court of Appeal’s judgement remains final as the Supreme Court did not grant Metsähallitus leave of appeal.
Earlier in 2017, the Helsinki District Court had dismissed damages claims in the original amount of more than EUR 50 million brought by private forest owners and municipalities regarding the same competition infringement on the roundwood market. The decisions by the District Court are final.
The legislation on the burden of proof regarding the occurrence of damages changed partially in December 2016 with the entry into force of the Act on Competition Damages. The Act is based on an EU Directive and it places the burden of proof regarding the occurrence of harm in cartels on the defendant. In other words, cartels are presumed to have caused harm unless the participants show the contrary.
Who Pays and How Much?
If harm has occurred, the next step for the court to assess is the amount of damages. This summer, the Helsinki District Court gave a decision in a damages case based on predatory pricing. Finland’s largest dairy operator was alleged to have inflicted harm on its competitors by pricing below its variable costs. This was Finland’s first significant damages trial related to an abuse of a dominant market position and one of the very few in Europe. Four claims out of six were settled before the main hearing. As regards the remaining two, the damages awarded by the District Court were less than a third of the original claim, which amounted to EUR 30 million. The decision is final.
Often, the court will also have to determine how liability for damages is divided between members of the competition infringement. In June, the Supreme Court handed down its first rulings regarding damages claims based on the so-called asphalt cartel. The Finnish government and 40 municipalities claimed damages that originally amounted to a total of EUR 120 million from asphalt companies on the basis of a cartel. The Supreme Court clarified, among other things, the joint and several liability of cartel participants in a situation where the liability for damages has become time-barred for some of them. In the cases before the Supreme Court, three companies were jointly and severally liable for damages. However, for two of them, the liability had become time-barred. The Supreme Court deemed that this had caused the joint and several liability to lapse. Notwithstanding this, in one of the cases the third company was liable for the full amount of damages due to the fact that it had been the contracting party of the claimant. In another case, the same company was only liable for one third of the damages, because it had not been a contracting party of the claimant but it had otherwise played a central role in the cartel.
The asphalt cartel damages cases have also brought up the issue of the transfer of liability in corporate acquisitions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred this question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. The CJEU gave its ruling in the spring. It found that the purchaser of a cartel company is liable for damages if it continues the company’s activity, even if it had dissolved the acquired company. This ruling will be taken into account in the Supreme Court’s final decision.
Read More
For those who would like to learn more about competition damages, our experts Ilona Karppinen and Sari Hiltunen have compiled an extensive account of Finnish law and legal praxis for the publication Private Antitrust Litigation: A Practical Law Global Guide.
Latest insights
Article published 3.3.2026 – Employment
The threshold for dismissal is lowered: what should be taken into account in practice?
Article published 6.2.2026 – Tax & Structuring
Electricity sector Profit Tax Act in conflict with EU law – SAC denied leave to appeal
Article published 2.2.2026 – Data & Technology
Avoid costly risks with well-drafted distribution agreements
Article published 14.1.2026 – Tax & Structuring
VAT deductions for private equity investors under the microscope
Aleksandra Särkelä
Janne Juusela & Mikko Alakare
Topi Lusenius & Samuli Salminen
Mikko Alakare & Lotta Manu
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
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026
Plastep – Sale of share capital
We advised Plastep Oy and its shareholders in the sale of the entire share capital of the company to FinnProfiles Oy. The acquisition strengthens FinnProfiles’ position as a Nordic expert in sealing and insulation solutions and expands the company’s expertise in the manufacture of plastic products and technical components. Plastep, founded in 2001 and based in South Savo, is a contract manufacturer specialising in the design and production of demanding and technical plastic components, with a turnover of EUR 6.5 million.
Case published 18.2.2026