Master of Laws Helinä Teittinen joined Castrén & Snellman as an Associate on 14 March 2022.
24.3.2022
Helinä Teittinen Appointed as Associate
Helinä works in our Environment, Infrastructure & Natural Resources service.
Latest news
Latest references
Fingrid – Update of EMTN Programme
We advised Fingrid Oyj on the Finnish law aspects in the update of a EUR 3,000,000 Euro Medium Term Note programme (EMTN). Notes issued under the programme may be listed on the Irish Stock Exchange. Fingrid operates Finland’s main electricity transmission grid and all significant cross-border transmission connections. The main grid is the backbone of the electricity transmission network, to which major power plants, industrial plants and regional electricity distribution networks are connected.
Case published 17.3.2026
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