Two topics have recently been at the centre of discussion in the Finnish climate law sphere: the newly approved amendment to the Climate Act and the appeal on the Annual Climate Report.
19.12.2022
Latest news in climate law: Climate Act amended and Finland’s first climate litigation case filed
Sonja Pätäri
Related services
On 9 December 2022 Parliament approved the government proposal HE 239/2022 to amend the Climate Act (423/2022) that entered into force in July 2022. The amended Climate Act enters into force on 1 January 2023 and will include new provisions on the climate plans of municipalities and on appeals concerning decisions made under the Climate Act.
As for the appeal, the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and Greenpeace Norden filed it to the Supreme Administrative Court on 28 November 2022, requesting that the Finnish Government’s decision with respect to the Annual Climate Report 2022 be revoked and sent back to preparation.
Amended Climate Act obliges municipalities to plan climate actions
The Climate Act in force applies to the tasks of central government authorities (see our blog from spring 2022). The approved amendment to the Climate Act extends the scope to municipalities, obliging them to draw up climate plans going forward. The purpose of the amendment is to make the climate work of municipalities more efficient and systematic. Among other things, the climate plans must set out the municipality’s emission reduction targets and specify the measures by which the emissions will be reduced. Municipalities can draw up plans either alone or together with other municipalities in the region. The plans must be updated at least once during each council term, and their realisation must also be monitored.
Legal practice regarding climate actions to develop in the coming years
The current Climate Act does not regulate the appeals process. Instead, general legislation concerning appeals has applied to the decisions made under the Climate Act. The new Act, however, includes a specific provision on the appeals process with respect to government decisions concerning climate policy plans. The new section provides for in detail which parties have the right to appeal these decisions, for example.
Around the world, judicial proceedings related to climate actions have become increasingly common in recent years. The Urgenda case, for example, has been in the spotlight. However, the appeal by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and Greenpeace is the first time the sufficiency of the state’s climate actions is challenged in court in Finland.
According to the organisations, the Government has failed in its duty to take the necessary additional actions in terms of carbon sinks to ensure the realisation of the targets set out in the Finnish Climate Act. In their appeal, the organisations also refer to the obligations under the Paris Agreement. The next step is for the Supreme Administrative Court to assess the procedural requirements and decide whether it will consider the organisations’ appeal.
The Climate Act concerns the planning of climate policy and the monitoring of its implementation, i.e. the tasks of the authorities, and does not lay down any direct obligations for companies. The outcome of the appeal pending in the Supreme Administrative Court and the future interpretation practice of the provision concerning appeals will nevertheless indicate how the sufficiency of climate actions will be challenged in Finnish courts going forward.
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