FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Pekka Tuunainen, Pekka Tuunainen Attorneys Ltd
2.8 Media Access and Transparency in Financial Proceedings As most cases are handled by distributors, family pro ‑ ceedings are completely private, and the media does not have any access. This is one of the reasons why the system of distributors is widely accepted. If a case is appealed to the court, the main rule is that all material and cases are public. It is possible to request that spouses’ financial information is kept pri ‑ vate, but courts do not normally accept such requests. It is not possible to anonymise proceedings or the names of the parties at court. The media’s ability to report is somewhat limited. It cannot disclose the names of parties unless it is a question of a public figure or unless publishing the names would be in the public interest. This is quite well followed by the media. Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople and well-known business figures are normally the ones whose names are published. One important fact is that, after the prenuptial or postnuptial agreement has been registered in a mag ‑ istrate’s court, which is mandatory, the agreement becomes a public document and can be obtained from the register by anyone. A magistrate can hide some financial information in the agreement (eg, the exact amounts to be paid in case of divorce). 2.9 ADR in Financial Matters Private distributors are the first instance to handle financial matters. The law states that it is the distribu ‑ tor’s duty to encourage parties to agree their dispute and to help the parties reach agreement. The success of this depends on each individual case. In general, about half of the cases end in agreement with the distributor’s proceedings. Such agreement is final and comparable to a court judgment. To have it enforced, exequatur must be applied for from the court, but this is not usually needed, as part of the agreement is that the agreement is enforced before it is final. If the case is appealed to the court, the court offers the possibility of mediation. Such mediation is stated in law and is completely voluntary – not using it does not have any negative effect on the normal court pro ‑
wealth during the marriage. Even in such cases, the division of property is not judged as equal division; the result of adjustment is normally a fraction of assets or a fixed amount. 2.6 Cohabitation: Division of Assets Between Unmarried Couples There is special legislation in relation to unmarried cohabitants. The main rule is that parties will have their own assets after separation and there is no pos ‑ sibility of the division of assets. However, a cohabitant can have a monetary claim of excessive inputs into the other cohabitant’s assets. There is quite a heavy burden of proof from the claim ‑ ant, but orders to pay exist in practice. Successful cases are normally quite obvious where the other cohabitant has paid all family costs and even paid partly for assets owned by the other party. Everyday spending cannot normally be used successfully as a ground for claims. To use this cohabitation legislation, there are two requirements. Cohabitation must have continued for at least five consecutive years or the cohabitants must have a common child. This does not guarantee any compensation. Requirements for compensation set in law must be met. 2.7 Enforcement of Financial Orders If a party has a court order, it is enforceable by law and a claim can be taken to the enforcement office. The enforcement system is a public service and a separate office. It is considered to be effective and cheap for the claimant. If a financial decision is made by the distributor, as it is in most cases, this decision is not enforceable and one must have enforcement of judgment first. Judgments and similar orders from European Union countries are enforceable. Orders from other countries are not. There are exclusions on spousal maintenance orders and those can be accepted as enforceable.
128 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook