9.12.2021

Right to Appeal Building Permits Expands to Registered Associations as of December 2021

Registered associations will in future have the right to appeal building permits if the permit concerns a project that is subject to the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure. This amendment to the Land Use and Building Act (132/1999) entered into force on 1 December 2021.

The amendment is based on the formal notice issued by the European Commission to Finland stating that Finland has failed to transpose  several provisions of the Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2011/92/EU).

What Has Changed?

The right to appeal a building permit now also applies to registered associations whose purpose is to promote the conservation of the environment, health or nature.

However, the expanded right of appeal only applies to buildings in projects that are subject to the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure.

In other words, the environmental impacts of the project must have been subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure. The right of appeal in building permit procedures concerns all buildings that are part of the project subject to the environmental impact assessment.

For example, the building permit for a major industrial facility located in an industrial park or the building permit for an individual wind turbine that is part of a wind park project could fall under the expanded right of appeal.

The right of appeal also includes the right to make a request for an administrative review. The right to make such a request is determined on the same grounds as the right of appeal. A decision made on the basis of a request for an administrative review can be appealed.

It is worth noting that the grounds for an appeal by an association are limited to the field of operation defined in the association’s by-laws, and the building in question must be located in the association’s area of operations.

What Impacts Will the Amendment Have?

The amendment will expand the pool of potential appellants and could, therefore, delay a building permit from becoming final. Construction cannot, as a rule, be started before the permit is final, and an appeal process could delay the implementation of the project.

Parties applying for building permits still have the right to apply to the permit authority for the right to commence, based on which the construction work can be performed partially or in full against placement of a security prior to the building permit being final. In such case, commencing construction work means taking the risk that the appeal authority could later overturn the permit decision. Further, while an appeal is pending, an appeal authority may also prohibit the enforcement of the permit decision.

Latest references

We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its AI business to Better Care Technologies Oy. The transaction included Efima’s Moiva AI platform developed for the care sector, the related technology and brand, customer contracts, and the experts working in the business. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere. 
Case published 21.9.2026
We advised Neoen Renewables Finland Oy, part of the French Neoen Group, in its sale of a data centre project to a consortium consisting of international data centre developers and operators. This marked Neoen’s first data centre development project in Finland. Founded in 2008, Neoen is one of the world’s leading independent renewable energy producers. The company operates in 15 countries. It develops, finances, builds, owns, and operates solar power plants, wind farms, and battery storage systems. Neoen Group is owned by global alternative asset manager Brookfield Corporation.
Case published 17.9.2026
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026
VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026