On 6 February Advocate General Wahl published his in a preliminary ruling request concerning the Finnish asphalt cartel damages case C-724/17. The question that AG Wahl considered was whether the determination of the persons liable to pay compensation is a matter of EU law instead of national law and whether the principle of economic continuity is to be applied in determining the persons liable to pay compensation for cartel damages. The opinion of Advocate General is non-binding and the European Court of Justice can deviate from the opinion.
8.2.2019
Are M&A and Insolvency Proceedings at Risk Due to Competition Law Penalties and Damage Claims?
Related services
According to AG Wahl, in a private damages claims for cartel infringements before a national court, the persons held liable to pay compensation should be determined on the basis of EU law in order to ensure the effectiveness of the enforcement of EU competition law. If the persons liable to pay compensation differed from one Member State to another, economic operators could be treated differently, depending on the domestic jurisdiction dealing with the private law claim. From the perspective of the effective enforcement of EU competition law, leaving the determination of the persons liable for damages to the discretion of the Member States could considerably limit the injured party’s right to claim compensation. Furthermore, the application of different rules would run counter to one of the fundamental objectives of EU competition law – creating a level playing field on the internal market. This could also be an invitation to forum shopping.
When the authority or the court is imposing fines for competition infringements, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in economic activity, irrespective of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. AG Wahl states that the determination of the persons liable to pay compensation within the context of private liability should not be determined on a different basis. Therefore, AG Wahl wishes to extend the concepts of undertaking and economic continuity in private damages proceedings.
AG Wahl stated that the principle of economic continuity is to be applied so that an individual may seek compensation from a company that has continued the economic activity of a cartel participant. If the principle of economic continuity was not applied, undertakings could escape penalties by changing their identity through restructurings, sales or other legal or organisational changes. AG Wahl claims this would jeopardise the objective of preventing competition law infringements by means of deterrent penalties. Instead, the liability should be attached to assets, rather than to a particular legal personality.
However, the Advocate General does not take the big picture into account: if the Court’s judgement follows the opinion of AG Wahl, applying economic continuity in private damage claims may have significant and unforeseeable effect for instance on mergers and acquisitions and insolvency proceedings. For example, an acquirer of assets acting in good faith could be held liable for potential private actions for damages which may not be foreseeable the time of the business purchase.
In addition, applying economic continuity in insolvency proceedings could endanger the equality of creditors. Liabilities for cartel damages could be treated as debts of the bankruptcy estate, not of the debtor. Those debts would be compensated first directly from the bankruptcy estate instead of assets subject to distribution in bankruptcy. In addition, the uncertainty of such claims could lead to lower purchase price received by bankruptcy estates seeking to sell the business operations.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
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