The working group preparing the amendments of the Competition Act published its report on 14 March 2017.
The working group has completed its assessment of the current state of the Competition Act and has proposed changes, particularly to authority inspections and the penalty system.
In its report, the working group proposes that the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) should have the right to continue inspecting electronic material in its own offices when carrying out inspections. The working group also proposes that an express provision be added to the Competition Act stating that the FCCA’s right of access would not be dependent on the storage medium, because material relevant to inspections is often stored in a variety of mobile devices.
The report also proposes improvements to the protection of privileged communications between companies and their outside legal counsel. This would be achieved through a new procedure for disputed situations in which the documents would be handed over for review by an official independent of the supervision of the Competition Act. This official would decide whether a document is privileged communication with legal counsel. According to the proposal, this decision would not be open to appeal independently of the main matter.
The working group would expand the powers of the FCCA in connection with inspections outside of the company’s business premises (i.e. home inspections). In the future, the FCCA would be allowed to request information on facts and documents and store the answers it receives in connection with these kinds of inspections.
With respect to the amounts of penalty payments imposed on industry associations, the working group proposes that, in the event a violation committed by an association relates to the behaviour of its members, the penalty payment could be a maximum of ten per cent of the sum of the turnovers of the association and its ten largest members involved in the behaviour in question.
According to the working group’s proposal, a competition infringement could also lead to ‘structural remedies’ being imposed. This would usually involve obligating the company to divest certain assets. These kinds of structural remedies would be imposed by the Market Court based on the proposal of the FCCA.
The report also proposes that the law allow penalty payments to be imposed if certain of the Competition Act’s procedural rules are violated. A penalty payment could be imposed, for example, if a company were to provide false information when responding to the FCCA or were to refuse to comply with an inspection. The penalty payment would be imposed by the Market Court based on the proposal of the FCCA.
The working group has also made proposals relating to, among other things, the exchange of information between authorities, the prioritisation and inadmissibility of cases, the procedural deadlines for merger control as well as the supervision of competition neutrality.
The working group did not provide proposals for provisions for all of the matters it discussed, and the report is not unanimous. In particular, the representatives of industry and commerce submitted critical observations in the minority reports and supplementary statements attached to the report.
The report is open for comments until 15 May 2017. The next stage in the reform is to draft a government bill.
The working group already published an interim report on 2 May 2016 concerning its other task. In the interim report, the working group assessed the need to reform the Competition Act due to a government programme concerning the profitability of Finnish food production.
Read the full working group report of 14 March 2017 in Finnish.
Latest news
Latest references
A. Ahlström – ESG advisory and corporate sustainability due diligence process planning
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
Vapaus Bikes Finland – Series A funding round
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
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
Tesi – Investment in Sisu Auto
We advised Tesi (Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) in its investment in the heavy duty vehicles company Oy Sisu Auto Ab. With this investment, Tesi became an owner in the company with a share of 24.4 per cent. Sisu Auto is a pioneer in the Nordic market in the development of heavy duty vehicles. Sisu’s core competences are in the product development and production of trucks and military vehicles. Tesi is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies. The investments managed by Tesi total 2.1 billion euros.
Case published 19.8.2024