22.2.2019

Court of Justice Preliminary Ruling on Finnish Insurance Premium Tax

It is common for the parties in mergers and acquisitions to consider insuring the risk relating to the sale and purchase agreement. This risk most often relates to the value of the shares being purchased and the fairness of the purchase price. This kind of insurance can be taken out by either the purchaser or the seller, and the purpose of such a policy is that the insurer will cover financial damage caused by breaches of the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement as provided for in the terms of the policy.

It is quite common for the purchaser, seller and target company in a transaction to be established in different countries. Many countries, including Finland, collect a tax on the premiums of such transaction insurance policies. The amount of this tax varies from country to country, so the parties naturally have an interest in what country’s tax regulations apply. Is it based on where the target company is established or where the purchaser or seller are established?

The Supreme Administrative Court of Finland is currently hearing an appeal on a preliminary ruling of the Central Tax Board concerning a warranty & indemnity insurance policy offered by a UK insurer on the Finnish market. The insurer operates under a cross-border licence and has no fixed establishment in Finland. The insurer applied for a preliminary ruling from the Central Tax Board to determine which country is entitled to levy the insurance premium tax in the circumstances presented in the application.

The Supreme Administrative Court sent the following preliminary ruling questions to the Court of Justice:

The Court of Justice issued its preliminary ruling on 17 January 2019 (case C-74/18) in which it stated the following:

The first subparagraph of Article 157(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), as amended by Directive 2013/58/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, read in conjunction with Article 13(13) of Directive 2009/138, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an insurance company established in a Member State offers insurance covering the contractual risks associated with the value of the shares and the fairness of the purchase price paid by the buyer in the acquisition of an undertaking, an insurance contract concluded in that context is subject exclusively to the indirect taxes and parafiscal charges on insurance premiums in the Member State where the policyholder is established. (emphasis added)

The Supreme Administrative Court will issue its ruling in the appeal shortly. Based on the Court of Justice’s preliminary ruling, it seems quite clear that the Member State where the policyholder is established is decisive when determining what premium tax regulations are applied. The Member State where the insured party or the target company are established does not seem to have any impact. This Court of Justice preliminary ruling provides a foundation for international groups of companies to plan their taxation.

Latest references

We successfully represented a Finnish construction management consultancy and a safety coordinator employed by the company in criminal proceedings concerning an alleged occupational safety and health offence. The prosecutor sought a penalty for an alleged breach of occupational safety regulations. The charge arose from a fall accident at a construction site where our client acted as the safety coordinator appointed by the developer. We assessed the scope of the safety coordinator’s duties in relation to the responsibilities of the main contractor, as well as how our client had fulfilled their obligations in practice. We demonstrated that our client had acted with due care and in full compliance with their duties throughout the planning, preparation and execution of the construction project. The District Court of Eastern Uusimaa dismissed the charge against our client. The Court held that our client, in their capacity as safety coordinator, had duly fulfilled the occupational safety obligations incumbent on the developer during the planning and preparation phases of the construction project and had not been aware of the fall protection deficiency identified at the site. The judgment is final insofar as our client is concerned.
Case published 22.6.2026
We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its financial management services business to Rantalainen as part of its strategic focus on fully concentrating on the delivery of business applications as well as data and AI solutions. As a result of the transaction, customer contracts related to financial management services and 65 experts working in these services will transfer to Rantalainen. The transaction will be carried out as a transfer of business, and the experts will move to the new owner as existing employees. 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 12.6.2026
We advised lead investor Ugly Duckling Ventures on the EUR 6.5 million funding round of Skyfora. The round also included Eviny Ventures, LUMO Labs and EIC Fund, alongside non-dilutive funding from Business Finland. The investment will support the commercial scale-up of Skyfora’s weather intelligence solutions, the expansion of partnerships with telecom operators, forecasting providers and meteorological institutions, and the continued growth of the team. Skyfora is a Finnish company developing high-resolution weather data solutions using patented technology that extracts atmospheric data from GNSS receivers embedded in existing infrastructure, such as telecom networks. By unlocking previously untapped data sources, Skyfora enables the next generation of AI-driven weather forecasting and supports improved decision-making across weather-sensitive industries. Ugly Duckling Ventures is a Copenhagen-based venture capital firm focused on early-stage Nordic B2B technology companies, with an emphasis on medtech, resilience tech and business services.
Case published 10.6.2026
castren snellman general atlantic iceye
We advised General Atlantic as the lead investor on ICEYE’s EUR 1 billion series F funding round, valuing the company at over EUR 10 billion. ICEYE raised EUR 450 million (USD 520 million) in a primary Series F funding round led by General Atlantic. Additional investors included Solidium, Tesi, Varma, Ilmarinen, Lifeline Ventures, Nokia, Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) and TCV. Together with a secondary placement, the total fundraising exceeds EUR 1 billion. ICEYE is the world leader in sovereign intelligence from space, providing continuous monitoring capabilities to detect and respond to changes in any location on Earth. The company operates the world’s largest and most advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar satellite constellation. General Atlantic is a leading global investor with more than four and a half decades of experience providing capital and strategic support for over 885 companies throughout its history. As of March 31, 2026, General Atlantic manages approximately USD 126 billion in assets across its investment strategies. We advised General Atlantic on this transaction in collaboration with the international law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Case published 9.6.2026