Finland is currently moving out of the acute phase of the coronavirus crisis and into the recovery phase, which will put public sector investments and procurements into the spotlight. Though a quick recovery is on the top of everyone’s wish list, public tenders still need to be prepared carefully. This makes sure that the actual implementation of procurements isn’t delayed due to the tender process being challenged in court.
15.7.2020
New Case Law Clarifies Cooperation between Contracting Entities and Framework Agreements
Anna Kuusniemi-Laine, Jenna Puschmann & Johanna Lähde
Related services
Tags
The courts have not been completely shut down by the pandemic, and several recent cases have provided guidelines for the interpretation of procurement provisions. This article looks at three recent cases.
Cooperation between Contracting Entities Examined by the European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice has issued two interesting decisions concerning cooperation between contracting entities and in-house procurement. In June, the ECJ issued a decision on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court in case C-328/19 – City of Pori, and a judgement in case C-796/18 – Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) in May.
C-328/19: Transfer of Tasks and Cooperation
In the City of Pori case, the issue was whether procurement law is applicable to a situation in which one municipality, i.e. the City of Pori, has assumed responsibility for the statutory obligations of its neighbouring municipalities to arrange transport for disabled people. The ECJ assessed whether the question was of a transfer of tasks in accordance with the Remondis (C-51/15) case or of cooperation between contracting authorities in accordance with the Piepenbrock (C-386/11) case. The decision also assessed whether the City of Pori could use its own in-house entity to produce the transferred transport services.
The ECJ found that the host municipality arrangement established between the City of Pori and its neighbouring municipalities in accordance with the Local Government Act was not a procurement contract, but was a transfer of tasks in accordance with the Remondis case. The ECJ stated that the City of Pori could use its in-house entity to perform the transferred tasks. According to the court, in-house procurement is not prevented by the fact that the municipalities that transferred their tasks to Pori do not own shares the City of Pori’s in-house entity. The court took the stance that the control requirement relating to in-house procurement was met, because the host municipality arrangement gave the other municipalities the opportunity to influence the in-house entity’s strategic goals and important decisions alongside Pori.
In addition to disabled transport services, public transport services were also purchased from the in-house entity owned by the City of Pori. A cooperation arrangement was also established between Pori and certain other municipalities for these purchases. In this respect, the ECJ found that the services produced by the in-house entity under both of these cooperation arrangement could be deemed operations not aimed at the market, regardless of the fact that the parties to the arrangements were not identical and the services concerned different kinds of transport.
C-796/18: Cooperation between Contracting Entities
The ECJ’s ISE case also concerned cooperation between contracting entities. The city of Cologne and the state of Berlin had entered into two agreements concerning gratuitously providing software for the coordination of fire department operations to Cologne and concerning cooperation between Cologne and Berlin on the further development of the software. According to the cooperation agreement, each party was obligated to provide any changes they made to the software to the other party gratuitously. The point of departure in the case was that the expected monetary value of the changes to the software would be significantly larger than that of the software itself.
The ECJ found that the agreements as a whole were reciprocal and concluded in exchange for consideration, which meant that they could constitute a procurement contract. However, public procurement rules are not applied to cooperation between contracting entities, if the cooperation concerned ancillary functions of services that the cooperating authorities were obligated to offer. Such ancillary functions must promote the actual implementation of such services. The ECJ further noted that, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, cooperation between contracting entities cannot lead to a private enterprise being placed in a more beneficial position than its competitors.
Finnish Courts Assess Framework Agreements
Supreme Administrative Court Case KHO 2436/2020: Information to be Specified in Invitation to Tender Documents
In a recent decision (2436/2020), the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court considered the level of detail at which an invitation to tender must specify the contracting entities involved in a framework agreement as well as the procurements that these entities may make during the contract period. The case involved a framework agreement for the procurement of IT equipment and software as well as various IT services. Kuntien Tiera Oy had stated the maximum values of the procurement and all of its 268 shareholders as potential contracting entities.
However, the contracting entities that were likely committed to using the framework agreement were not specified. Thus, the invitation to tender did not contain sufficient information of the contracting entities. According to the invitation to tender, the value of the contract was significantly impacted by the degree to which Kuntien Tiera Oy’s customers would adopt the service. The documentation of the invitation to tender had not provided the potential tenderers realistic and sufficient information on the actual scope of the agreement. The equal and non-discriminatory position of tenderers with respect to drafting commensurable and comparable tenders had not been secured in the tender process with respect.
Spotlight on Providing Sufficient Information in the Invitation to Tender
Issues relating to framework agreements have also recently been heard before the Market Court. It is important to make sure that the contracting entities and potential procurements are thoroughly specified in framework agreements. This ensures that tenderers have sufficient information on the contents of the agreement to draft commensurable and comparable tenders.
Latest news
Latest references
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
Plastep – Sale of share capital
We advised Plastep Oy and its shareholders in the sale of the entire share capital of the company to FinnProfiles Oy. The acquisition strengthens FinnProfiles’ position as a Nordic expert in sealing and insulation solutions and expands the company’s expertise in the manufacture of plastic products and technical components. Plastep, founded in 2001 and based in South Savo, is a contract manufacturer specialising in the design and production of demanding and technical plastic components, with a turnover of EUR 6.5 million.
Case published 18.2.2026