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.
22.2.2019
Court of Justice Preliminary Ruling on Finnish Insurance Premium Tax
Related services
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 news
Latest references
Jensen-Group – Acquisition of Vestek
We advised Jensen-Group with its acquisition of Oy Vestek Ab, the long-standing distributor of Jensen solutions in Finland. The strategic step underlines Jensen-Group’s long-term commitment to the Nordic region and its ambition to further expand sustainable and future-oriented laundry automation solutions in Finland. Jensen-Group, listed on Euronext Brussels, is a global leader in heavy‑duty laundry technology, known for designing and manufacturing industrial laundry machines, systems, and turnkey automation solutions. Oy Vestek Ab is a Finnish import company founded in 1961. The company’s main activity is to import supplies and machinery, including providing products and services for the health care and laundry industries, from Europe and the USA and to act as a wholesale dealer on the Finnish market.
Case published 16.3.2026
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