FINLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Marja Norrena, Maija Ahtiainen, Valmari Keskimäki and Krista Hautakoski, Lieke Attorneys Ltd
Upcoming reforms The Ministry of Justice has established a working group to evaluate methods of strengthening the rule of law and developing the Finnish judicial system. Overall, the reform is likely to be the most signifi- cant procedural reform since the 1990s. As part of its assignment, the working group has been tasked with establishing measures to streamline civil proceedings. Due to the chronic lack of resources in the Finnish judicial system, our understanding is that the focus will be on enhancing the cost and time efficiency of legal proceedings within current resource limits rather than on pursuing new practices that would require additional funding. Work is still in the very early stages. The working group has come up with various initial proposals, which have been submitted to stakeholders for comment. The feedback from stakeholders has been mixed, and it is too early to assess which proposals, and in what form, will eventually be pursued. While some reforms might not require legislative amendments and are instead a matter of adopting more efficient work practices, others might require substantial amendments to pro- cedural rules. However, the goal of streamlining civil proceedings without compromising other procedural principles is a challenging task, particularly given the limited resources available. Video recording of witness testimonies An important aspect of streamlining civil proceedings is making better use of technological developments. An example of this is the recent reform of witness hearings. Until now, witnesses who needed to be reheard during the appeals process were required to give their testimony again. This approach has been not only inefficient and costly but also problematic in other respects. As time passes between hearings in the District Court and the appeals court, witnesses’ memories of relevant events often fade, and there is a risk they may be influenced by what other witnesses have said during earlier proceedings. This practice is now set to change, as an amendment to the procedural rules has been approved. In future, witness testimonies given in the District Courts will be video recorded. If an appeal is lodged, the appeals court may primarily rely on these recordings as oral
evidence. This means that witnesses who have already given their testimony in the District Court will not need to appear before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to give their testimony again, unless there is a special reason to do so. This reform should serve as a good example of how new approaches can benefit the effectiveness and quality of court proceedings. The reform will be implemented once the necessary technical systems are in place in the District Courts, which is expected to be in spring of 2026. New avenues to the Supreme Court In 2023, the Supreme Court submitted a legislative proposal to the government relating to appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted in its pro- posal that its ability to issue precedents had dimin- ished, particularly in civil matters, due to the decreas- ing number of cases reaching the Supreme Court. While not mentioned in the proposal by the Supreme Court, there is also a major trend of high-value com- mercial cases regularly being referred to arbitration instead of general courts. Consequently, the majority of the Supreme Court’s precedents tend to concern cases and situations with limited relevance to com- mercial litigation between equal business parties. To enhance the Supreme Court’s ability to issue prec- edents, as well as improve the cost and time efficiency of certain cases, two legislative amendments were enacted and came into force in April 2025. Firstly, in cases where the Court of Appeal has not granted leave for continued consideration and this decision is appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can now decide questions of a precedential nature directly, before assessing whether the criteria for granting leave are met. The parties’ request or con- sent is not required, but they should nonetheless be given an opportunity to be heard. Previously, if the Supreme Court found that leave for continued con- sideration was warranted, the case would have been referred straight back to the Court of Appeal. Secondly, lower courts may now refer questions of a precedential nature to the Supreme Court separately from the main proceedings. Once the Supreme Court has ruled on the referred question, or has refused to consider it, the proceedings continue in the court that referred the matter to the Supreme Court. Either
327 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook