10.6.2019

Competition Act Amended – Investigative Powers of The FCCA to Be Expanded and Merger Control Deadlines Lengthened

The President has 7 June 2019 ratified the laws by which the amendments to the competition act will enter into force mainly on 17 June 2019.

In dawn raids, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) now has the power to make working copies of the investigated material and continue the inspection later in its own premises. The target undertaking and its representatives have the right to be present during the inspection regardless of where it is conducted. The investigative powers of the FCCA will apply irrespective of the storage medium, which means that mobile phones and tablets used for private purposes may also now be subject to inspection.

Authorities Increase Cooperation

The exchange of information between national authorities has been increased, e.g. by expanding the list of authorities to which the FCCA may disclose information and documents without prejudice to the confidentiality rules. Moreover, the Tax Administration may also on its own initiative disclose tax information to the FCCA that may be relevant to the monitoring of competition restrictions. Also, authorities engaged in combating the grey economy may prepare a corporate responsibility statement in the context of monitoring restrictions on competition.

Unbundling Obligation as of the Start of 2020

The act will also contain an obligation for unbundling accounts in bookkeeping for municipalities, federations of municipalities, the state and entities controlled by them in a competitive market situation where they are engaged in economic activity. The obligation will be reinforced by a penalty payment. The obligation does not apply to entities whose annual turnover derived from said activities is less than EUR 40,000. The obligation to keep separate accounts will enter into force on 1 January 2020.

Extended Merger Control Processing Times

Merger control deadlines have been extended. The deadlines are now calculated in working days instead of calendar days. The Phase I processing time will be 23 working days (previously one month) and the deadline for the Phase II will be 69 working days (previously three months). The Market Court may still extend the Phase II processing time by a maximum of 46 working days (previously two months).

In order to expedite the merger control process, it is important to undergo a pre-notification phase before the filing itself and to ensure that the notification includes all of the necessary information. The FCCA emphasised this point in a seminar it held on 22 May 2019. The FCCA’s presentation from the seminar is available in Finnish here. 

Latest references

We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its AI business to Better Care Technologies Oy. The transaction included Efima’s Moiva AI platform developed for the care sector, the related technology and brand, customer contracts, and the experts working in the business. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere. 
Case published 21.9.2026
We advised Neoen Renewables Finland Oy, part of the French Neoen Group, in its sale of a data centre project to a consortium consisting of international data centre developers and operators. This marked Neoen’s first data centre development project in Finland. Founded in 2008, Neoen is one of the world’s leading independent renewable energy producers. The company operates in 15 countries. It develops, finances, builds, owns, and operates solar power plants, wind farms, and battery storage systems. Neoen Group is owned by global alternative asset manager Brookfield Corporation.
Case published 17.9.2026
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026
VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026