FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Anna-Stéphanie Roubier, Johanna Kauppinen and Milja Vuopio, HPP Attorneys Ltd
of Heinon Tukku, a Finnish wholesale food service, was approved. That commitment sought to pre - vent the transmission of Valio’s main competitors’ price information to persons responsible for pricing Valio’s products. The Market Court held that Valio had breached Section 25 of the Competition Act. The FCCA had proposed a fine of EUR900,000. The Market Court considered Valio’s breach to be a seri - ous competition infringement but found that it was somewhat narrower than the FCCA had concluded and therefore somewhat reduced the amount of the fine. This was the first time in Finland that a fine was imposed for a failure to comply with commitments. The case is pending on appeal before the Finnish The FCCA issues a formal, written decision in each case. That decision can either approve the concentra - tion, with or without commitments, or be a proposal to the Market Court for the prohibition of a concentration where competition concerns have been identified and cannot be removed through commitments. Supreme Administrative Court. 5.6 Issuance of Decisions The FCCA publishes non-confidential versions of its decisions on its website. Before publication, busi - ness secrets and other confidential information are removed, but the essential reasoning and assessment are made publicly available. This practice is consist - ent with the requirements of the Competition Act and ensures transparency in merger control review while protecting parties’ sensitive commercial information. 5.7 Prohibitions and Remedies for Foreign-to- Foreign Transactions In recent years, the FCCA has required remedies in several cases. In the period 2022 to mid-2026, the FCCA has required and accepted remedies in five cases. An example of a foreign-to-foreign transaction where commitments have been imposed is the FCCA’s deci - sion in KKV/1493/14.00.10/2021 BEWI ASA / Jackon Holding AS from 2022. The FCCA ultimately cleared the acquisition by BEWI ASA of Jackon Holding AS on condition that BEWI ASA divested its entire Finn - ish expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulation business.
Both parties in the case were headquartered outside of Finland.
6. Ancillary Restraints and Related Transactions 6.1 Clearance Decisions and Separate Notifications Restrictions that are ancillary to a concentration fall within the scope of the FCCA’s clearance decision. The FCCA’s Guidelines (Part 7) specifically address ancillary restrictions and require the notifying party or parties to independently assess the legality of any ancillary restrictions. The FCCA will only evaluate and approve ancillary restrictions when this is expressly requested by the notifying party (parties). 7. Third-Party Rights, Confidentiality and Cross-Border Co-Operation 7.1 Third-Party Rights The FCCA may request information from third parties during the pre-notification process if the concentra - tion has become public (this would be the case where the parties have publicly announced the concentra - tion, for instance, following the signing of the transac - tion agreements). Apart from the pre-notification process, the FCCA regularly requests information and clarification from market participants (customers, suppliers and com - petitors) when appraising a notified concentration (Phase I). However, third parties do not have a right to appeal the FCCA’s decision to the Market Court or the Supreme Administrative Court, as they have been held to lack standing (no sufficient direct interest). 7.2 Contacting Third Parties When the FCCA receives a notification, it carries out a market investigation. This allows third parties, such as customers, suppliers, competitors and relevant trade associations, to express their views on the con - centration and its effects on competition. The FCCA typically contacts third parties by sending RFIs or by publishing a general invitation on its website, calling for third parties to submit comments on the notified
219 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook