13.1.2015

New Information Society Code Entered into Force on 1 January 2015

The Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications has long been preparing a complete reform of legislation applying to electronic communications. The new Information Society Code consolidates, among other things, provisions of the Communications Market Act, the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communications, the Domain Name Act and the Act on Television and Radio Operations. The main objective of the reform has been to eliminate overlaps and to clarify, reduce and modernise fragmented legislation. Finnish Parliament approved the revised act in October, and it will come into force for the most part on 1 January 2015.

The introduction of the act brings forth some material changes to, for example, legislation that applies to protection of privacy and ensuring information security. Consumer protection for users and purchasers of electronic communication services is also improved. In addition to these changes, there will be amendments in regulations regarding significant market power and domain names, in particular.

Focus on confidentiality of electronic communications and protection of privacy

Recently, there has been intensive discussion concerning the data protection of users of online services. In fact, one of the main objectives of the Information Society Code is to secure the confidentiality of electronic communications and ensure the protection of privacy. As the Information Society Code enters into force, the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communications will be repealed and the relevant provisions will be included in the new code.

Until recently, the operational obligations related to the protection of privacy have only concerned telecom operators, corporate subscribers and providers of value-added services. The legislation on the protection of privacy has been extended to cover all operators that convey communication as referred to in the Information Society Code, i.e. to telecom operators, corporate subscribers and other bodies that convey communications otherwise than for personal or similar normal private purposes.

The operational obligations related to privacy will therefore apply to all operators whose electronic communication services are used for exchanging confidential messages. In particular, such services include various online community services and social media.

Clarifications of the Applicability of Finnish Law in Cross-Border Cases

Another important change introduced by the Information Society Code regards the possible extension of the scope of the regulation of the protection of privacy to cover international operators. Henceforth, the regulation of the protection of privacy will apply to both national and foreign operators that convey communication, if the operator has its seat in Finland or within Finnish jurisdiction. Even when the operator has no seat in the territory of a Member State of the European Union, it is obliged to adhere to the regulation on the protection of privacy, if the operator’s key equipment is located in Finland or is maintained from Finland. The situation is similar when the operator has no seat in the territory of the Member States of the European Union, but the user of the service is in Finland and it is evident, based on the content of the service or the way it is marketed that the service is targeted at Finland.

The aim of the regulation is to increase the awareness of foreign companies about privacy and data security requirements that are set when a company either becomes established in Finland or offers its services there. The objective is equality between Finnish and international companies. In future, the operation of more and more operators conveying communication must take into account various obligations related to the confidentiality in the electronic communication and to the protection of privacy.

Regulation of Consumer Protection Becomes Clearer

In the past few years, defects in electronic communication systems have often been the topic of queries addressed to consumer authorities. This is mainly because the industry is constantly changing. While preparing the act, it was in fact considered essential to create new provisions that would clarify the consumer protection legislation that is applicable to electronic communication services. Under the new legislation, a telecom operator can be held jointly liable for a defect in the provision of a service. The legislation also defines the liability to compensate and the liability for defects as well as contractual terms in general.

The Information Society Act lays down provisions on joint and several liability between telecom operators and sellers or providers: such liability is comparable to joint and several liability between a lender and seller or service provider. Joint and several liability applies to situations in which the consumer has paid for a service, e.g. a public transport ticket or a parking fee, via mobile phone and the payment is charged to their phone bill. If the service or product is faulty or the consumer never receives it, the consumer can—in addition to the seller or service provider—turn to their telecommunications operator. In future, even a telecom operator can, therefore, be held liable to compensate a faulty product or service that has been paid for, e.g., by means of a mobile phone plan provided by the operator.

The Information Society Code also defines the rules related to telecommunication operators’ liability to compensate and liability for defects. Pursuant to law, there is a defect in the provision of an electronic communication service if the quality of the service or the method of provision thereof does not correspond to the provisions of the agreement on the provision of the electronic communication service. Efforts have also been made to clarify the means available to a purchaser when a defect is found. Additionally, the Information Society Code explicitly requires that the contractual terms of an agreement on the provision of electronic communication services be drafted in clear and understandable language. The aim is to emphasise the intelligibility of contractual terms to the consumer. To ensure clarity and intelligibility, consumers can be provided with additional information on the meaning of a specific contractual term.

Further information is available on the website of the Ministry of Transport and Communications (in Finnish).

 

Latest references

We advised WithSecure Oyj in the sale of its open source data collection product and business to Patria Oyj. The divested business combining software and services falls outside WithSecure’s current strategy. Through the sale, WithSecure sharpens its focus on the Elements portfolio. WithSecure is a global cyber security company (listed on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki) with more than 35 years of industry experience. WithSecure offers partners flexible commercial models, ensuring mutual success across the dynamic cyber security landscape. Patria is an international company in the defence and security industry offering defence, security and aviation life cycle support services and technology solutions. As a result of the transaction, Patria will open a new office in Oulu and 10 WithSecure experts currently working in the business area will join Patria. 
Case published 30.9.2024
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024