FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Pekkala, Mikko Leppä, Risto Sandvik and Nuutti Kortelainen, HPP Attorneys Ltd
5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility Questions concerning admissibility and jurisdiction are reviewed by the courts de novo. For judicial review of the merits of arbitral awards, see 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review . 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement As noted in 5.2 Circumstances for Court Interven- tion and 5.3 Timing of Challenge , Finnish courts are arbitration-friendly and, under the Arbitration Act, are obliged to favour arbitration over regular court pro - ceedings where an arbitration agreement has been invoked in a timely manner. However, courts cannot decline jurisdiction merely due to the existence of an arbitration agreement (ex officio); the arbitration agreement must be explicitly invoked by a party. 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties As a general rule, an arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over non-signatory parties to an arbitra - tion agreement. The personal scope of an arbitration agreement must be assessed in accordance with the general principles of Finnish contract law, and in cer - tain circumstances third parties (both domestic and foreign) may also invoke an arbitration agreement. For example, arbitration agreements are generally binding on successors and assignees, including, among oth - ers, bankruptcy estates. The Supreme Court of Finland has ruled that, in certain situations, an arbitration agreement may be extended to a non-signatory third party based on its conduct de facto and a non-signatory guarantor.
Under the FAI Rules, an arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant any interim measures of pro - tection it deems appropriate. However, it is essential to note that, in Finland, interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal are not enforceable, as only courts may grant binding and enforceable interim relief. 6.2 Role of Courts Finnish Courts and Interim Relief in Arbitral Proceedings As stated in 6.1 Types of Relief , only courts may grant binding and enforceable interim relief. Courts may grant interim measures before and during arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration Act. The application of a party to a judicial authority for such measures is not considered an infringement or a waiver of the arbitration agreement under the FAI Rules. Interim Relief and Foreign-Seated Arbitrations Finnish courts can grant interim relief in aid of foreign- seated arbitrations to the same extent as they can in support of national arbitral proceedings. A court may grant a broad range of interim measures, including: • the seizure of movable or real property; • prohibiting the deed or action of the opposing party under threat of a fine; • ordering the opposing party to do something under threat of a fine; • empowering the applicant to do something or to have something done; • ordering that property of the opposing party be placed under the administration and care of a trustee; and • ordering other measures necessary to secure the The matter of emergency arbitrators is not regulat - ed by law in Finland, but the FAI Rules allow for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator if a party is in need of urgent interim protection measures that can - not await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. An emergency arbitrator has the same power to grant any interim protection measures as an arbitral tribunal under the FAI Rules. right of the applicant. Emergency Arbitrators
6. Preliminary and Interim Relief 6.1 Types of Relief
The Arbitration Act is silent on the issue of interim relief, but parties may agree that such measures may be granted by the arbitral tribunal. The Arbitration Act provides that arbitrators may not impose the threat of a fine nor issue orders regarding other coercive means. Please note that the legislation governing this matter is about to change, see 2.2. Changes to National Law .
343 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook