3.7.2015

Private Enforcement of Competition Law under Revision in Finland – Working Group Published Report Proposing New Legislation

A working group appointed by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy has published a report on 16 June 2015 proposing amendments to the provisions governing actions for damages under competition law in Finland (report available only in Finnish). The report was drafted into the form of a government proposal. The report proposes an entirely new act on actions for damages on the basis of an infringement of competition law. The proposal is based on the EU directive on antitrust damages actions, which must be implemented nationally no later than on 27 December 2016. 

The aim of the Directive and the subsequent national law is, among other things, to ease the raising of claims for damages and to develop the proceedings in such a way that those suffering from infringements of competition law could be fully compensated for the damage.

The proposed act will make the legislative environment more favourable for the claimants in competition law private enforcement in Finland. It can be expected that with the entry into force of this act, the number of damages actions under competition law will continue to increase.

To a large degree, the new act would contain provisions on minimum requirements under the Directive that are already now implemented in the Finnish national law. However, the Directive requires the enactment of certain provisions that to date are not included in the Finnish law. The report proposes that the following provisions be implemented into the new act on actions for damages on the basis of an infringement of competition law:

 

The position of an immunity recipient would also be more favourable in comparison to the other parties to an infringement with respect to recourse liability. As a rule, the damages payable should be allocated to those liable in view of the level of guilt of the party concerned. The amount of damages payable by the party that has been granted immunity from fines under a leniency programme may not, however, exceed the amount of the damage it caused to its own direct or indirect purchasers or providers.

 

The report proposes economic succession for damage liability, although this issue is not required or even discussed in the Directive. In the report, economic succession refers to a situation, such as a transfer of business, in which the purchaser is also obligated to pay any damage caused by the target of the acquisition in the period preceding the transaction, if the purchaser was aware or should have been aware about the infringement. At least to date, corresponding legislation or case law is non-existent in other EU Member States.

On the other hand, the report does not propose that certain issues allowed under the Directive should be implemented into national law. For example, the reduction of fines due to a settlement is not proposed to be implemented into Finnish law, although this would be possible under the Directive.

It is still possible to influence the contents of the new provisions before the matter is referred to the Finnish Parliament. Comments may be submitted to the Ministry of Employment and the Economy by 11 September 2015. We are pleased to discuss the practical implications of the proposal for your company.

 

For further information, please contact:
Sari Hiltunen
Mikko Huimala
Salla Mäntykangas-Saarinen

 

 

Latest references

We acted as legal advisor to eQ Fund Management Company Ltd in a structural arrangement in which Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund and Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund II transferred their assets to the newly launched Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund III. In connection with the arrangement, eQ Residential Fund III raised 37 million euros in new capital, and its fundraising will continue throughout 2025.  The portfolio of eQ Residential Fund III consists of 19 residential properties completed between 2021 and 2024, comprising nearly 1,400 apartments located in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Turku, and Tampere.
Case published 21.5.2025
We assisted eQ Community Properties Fund in the sale of two healthcare properties to a fund managed by Northern Horizon. The properties have a total floor area of approximately 3,500 square meters. The two properties are located in Espoo and Lahti. The Espoo asset was completed in 2018 and the Lahti asset was completed in 2023. Both assets are operated by Attendo, the leading care provider in the Nordic region.
Case published 9.5.2025
We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025