Litigation 2026 Comparisons

The Finnish legal system is based on civil law tradition. The primary sources of law are statutes, including the Constitution and other legislation (statutes and decrees). As Finland is an EU member state, EU regulations also play an important role in the Finnish legal system. In addition to statutes, preparatory works of statues, case law and jurisprudence may be used as legal sources. Although Finland is a civil law country, case law from the Supreme Court is highly significant as a legal source, despite the fact that case law in general is less significant compared to its role in many common law jurisdictions.

The Finnish civil procedure can mostly be described adversarial as the courts are generally non-interventionist in most civil matters (see 7.7 Level of Intervention by a Judge). Civil procedures are usually conducted through both written submissions and oral argument presented in hearings (see 7.1 Trial Proceedings).

The Finnish court system consists of general courts, administrative courts, and a few specialised courts. General courts handle civil and criminal matters, as well as petitionary matters. The administrative courts handle matters relating to the administrative decisions of public authorities.

The general court system has three instances. District Courts are the courts of first instance. Their decisions may be appealed to the Courts of Appeal, provided that leave for continued consideration is granted by the Court of Appeal. In turn, the decisions of the Courts of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court, provided leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court.

There are a total of 20 District Courts and five Courts of Appeal in Finland. Certain legal matters are assigned to specific District Courts. For example, the Helsinki District Court is the exclusive forum for class actions. Similarly, the Helsinki Court of Appeal has certain special responsibilities not assigned to the other Courts of Appeal, such as handling specific international family law cases and appeals in disciplinary matters of the Finnish Bar Association.

The administrative court system consists of Administrative Courts at first instance and the Supreme Administrative Court at final instance. Decisions of the Administrative Courts may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, provided leave to appeal is granted. There are six regional Administrative Courts in Finland. As with general courts, certain matters are assigned to specific Administrative Courts. For example, the Helsinki Administrative Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to value-added tax and customs duties.

In addition to general and administrative courts, the Finnish court system includes specialised courts that handle certain matters falling within their specific jurisdictions. These include the Market Court, the Labour Court and the Insurance Court. The Market Court handles procurement, competition and supervision, market law (including certain consumer and marketing matters) and intellectual property rights matters. The Labour Court handles disputes arising from collective agreements, while the Insurance Court handles certain social security matters. The Finnish court system also includes the High Court of Impeachment, which hears charges brought against high-level state officials.

The length of legal proceedings can vary significantly between individual courts. In general courts, in particular, substantial delays are not uncommon between the commencement of proceedings and the main hearing.

Court filings and proceedings are generally open to the public. Publicity can only be restricted on statutory grounds, some of which the court is required to apply of its own accord, while others require a party to request confidentiality. For example, courts must always ensure the secrecy of information that would likely endanger the external security of the state or cause substantial harm to Finland’s international relations, as well as sensitive information concerning an individual’s private life, health, disability or social welfare. In contrast, the court may protect, for example, trade secrets at the request of a party. However, if a document includes trade secrets of a third party, the court should assess confidentiality on its own initiative.

As a general rule, parties are entitled to represent themselves in Finnish courts. In civil proceedings, legal representation is only mandatory in the Supreme Court for matters concerning a complaint based on a procedural error or the annulment of a judgment.

An attorney-at-law, a public legal aid lawyer and a licensed legal counsel may represent a client in Finnish courts. In addition, in-house legal counsel are entitled to represent their employer in court, provided they hold a Finnish Master of Laws degree, are honest and are otherwise suitable and competent for the task, are not bankrupt, and their legal capacity has not been restricted. The same applies to lawyers in the service of a labour market organisation when the case concerns employment or is heard before the Labour Court, as well as to public authorities whose statutory duties include assisting with legal proceedings. There are also certain types of cases where a law degree is not required for representation in court.

Lawyers from other jurisdictions are entitled to practice in Finnish courts, provided they are qualified attorneys-at-law in a European Economic Area member state or a country with which the European Union and its member states have an agreement on the mutual recognition of attorneys-at-law’s professional qualifications.

There are no statutory regulations in Finland concerning third-party litigation funding. In general, third-party litigation funding is permitted in Finland, except for class actions, which may not be funded by third parties that are competitors of the defendant or dependent on the defendant (see 3.7 Representative or Collective Actions, for more information on class actions). 

There are no restrictions on the type of lawsuits that can be funded by third parties, save for the aforementioned exception concerning class actions.

Third-party funding is possible for both the claimant and the defendant.

Third-party funding is not subject to any minimum or maximum amount requirements.

Typical costs that a third-party funder may agree to fund include legal fees for counsel and expert fees. A third-party funder may also consider funding adverse costs if the claim is unsuccessful.

Contingency fees can be used under Finnish law. However, if the legal representative is a member of the Finnish Bar Association, any contingency fee agreement must be in writing and adequately safeguard the client’s interests.

There are no time limits by when a party to the litigation should obtain third-party funding.

The Finnish civil procedure does not include a formal pre-action phase. The parties are not formally required to negotiate or communicate about the dispute before initiating legal proceedings. In practice, however, it is common to send at least a demand letter to inform the other party of the possibility of legal action and potentially reach an amicable solution without litigation. Although there are no formal requirements, the court may take into account the absence of prudent pre-action measures when evaluating the allocation of legal costs.

In addition, if a party is represented by an attorney-at-law (a member of the Finnish Bar Association), the attorney-at-law is bound by the Finnish Bar Association’s Code of Conduct. In the absence of specific reasons, the Code of Conduct prevents an attorney-at-law from taking legal action without informing the opposing party of their client’s demands and without giving the opposing party reasonable time to consider the claims, as well as an opportunity to reach an amicable settlement.

In Finland, there are no general time limits for bringing a civil suit. However, certain legislation sets time limits for filing specific types of lawsuits. For example, the Finnish Limited Liability Companies Act stipulates time limits for challenging general meeting decisions and for initiating claims for damages against company directors or auditors. Similarly, the Employment Contracts Act provides time limits for bringing employment-related lawsuits following the termination of an employment contract.

In addition to these specific time limits for bringing a suit in certain situations, Finnish law includes general substantive limitation periods applicable to civil claims. The general limitation period is defined in the Act on the Limitation of Debts and applies to most civil claims, such as ordinary monetary claims. The general limitation period under the Act is three years.

The commencement date of the limitation period varies. For example, it can start from an agreed due date, or in the case of claims for damages, from the date on which the creditor could first have demanded performance.

The limitation period can be renewed by various unofficial means that bring the debt to the debtor’s attention. It can also be interrupted by taking legal action.

In addition to the general three-year limitation period, the Act includes secondary limitation periods. For example, in claims for damages, a secondary limitation period of ten years begins on the date of the event that caused the damage. Even if the creditor was unaware of the damages before ten years had passed since the event occurred (meaning the general three-year limitation period had not commenced), the debt is time-barred.

If the debtor is an individual, monetary debts arising from a contract always ultimately become time-barred within 20 years of their due date, or within 25 years if the creditor is also an individual.

All entities with civil legal capacity are eligible to be parties to legal proceedings in a civil case – ie, natural persons and legal persons such as companies, states and municipalities.

A person is not required to be a Finnish citizen or company to be subject to suit in Finland. Where a legal person (for example a limited liability company) is established through registration, it cannot become a party to legal proceedings until the registration process is complete. In the case of foreign legal persons, eligibility is determined based on the law of their home state.

In Finland, a civil lawsuit is initiated by filing a written application for a summons to the District Court of competent jurisdiction. The main requirements for the content of the application for a summons are set out in the Code of Judicial Procedure. The application for a summons must include:

• the claimant’s specified claim;
• the circumstances on which the claim is based;
• as far as possible, the evidence that the claimant intends to present in support of their claim, and a description of what each piece of evidence is intended to prove;
• the claim for compensation for legal costs; and
• the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, if this cannot be inferred from the application for a summons or the documents attached to it.

Apart from the statutory minimum requirements for an application for a summons, the claimant should bear in mind that the application for a summons provides the judge or judges with their first impression of the case.

As a general rule, an action cannot be amended during the proceedings. However, before the main hearing of the case, the claimant is entitled to:

• claim a performance other than that intended in the action, provided that the amended claim is based on a change in circumstances that has occurred during the proceedings, or on a circumstance of which the claimant has only become aware during the proceedings;
• claim confirmation of a legal relationship that is disputed in the proceedings when clarity of this relationship is a prerequisite for deciding the other parts of the matter; and
• claim interest or present another subsidiary claim or even a new claim, if this is based on essentially the same grounds.

Furthermore, the presentation of new circumstances in support of the action is permitted unless these circumstances alter the nature of the case. A claim is not considered to have been amended merely because the original demand is supported by a new ground as long as the relief sought remains the same.

In Finland, it is primarily the court’s responsibility to serve the summons to the defendant. With the party’s consent, the court may entrust this responsibility to them if it considers there to be a reason to do so. In such a case, the court must specify the deadline for serving the document and for submitting proof of service. Failing to submit proof of service by the specified deadline and in the prescribed manner may result in the case being dismissed without further consideration.

When the court is responsible for service, it is primarily carried out by sending the documents to the party by registered post with an acknowledgment of receipt. Alternatively, service may be carried out by ordinary mail if it can be assumed that the addressee will receive the documents and returns the acknowledgement of receipt to the court, or with the addressee’s consent, by electronic means.

If service has not been successfully executed and it is clearly unlikely to be achieved using the above methods, or if there is another compelling reason, the documents must be served in person by a process server.

If the recipient of service resides abroad, the court must arrange service in accordance with specific legal provisions concerning the foreign state in question, or agreements made with that state, if the recipient’s address is known and the responsibility of service has not been assigned to a party. Depending on the country, the relevant provisions can be derived from EU regulations, the 1965 Hague Service Convention, or the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Service of Documents and Production of Evidence between Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. If the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, the court may serve them by way of a public notice.

If the defendant fails to respond to the application for a summons in a civil case where settlement is permitted, the court will issue a default judgment in favour of the claimant. A failure to respond is also deemed to have occurred if the defendant submits a response and formally contests the claim but either fails to present grounds for opposition, or relies solely on grounds that clearly have no bearing on deciding the case. However, if the claim is manifestly unfounded, it shall be dismissed even if the defendant has not responded.

If the court has issued a default judgment, the defendant has the right to apply for a retrial within 30 days of receiving verifiable notice of the judgment. If the default judgment has been based on the party’s failure to present a written response or to appear in court, the application must include grounds for amending the judgment that could have been relevant when the matter was first decided.

In Finland, collective actions are governed by the Act on Class Actions. The Act allows class actions to be brought on behalf of consumers in situations where:

• several persons have claims against the same defendant, based on the same or similar circumstances;
• the hearing of the case as a class action is expedient, considering the size of the class, the subject matter of the claims, and the evidence presented; and
• the class has been defined with adequate precision.

Cases may include typical consumer trade disputes and, through the now implemented EU Representative Actions Directive 2020/1828, violations of various EU regulations stipulated in the directive, such as those relating to data protection, electronic communications and environment.

Actions may be brought by so-called qualified entities, which currently include the Consumer Ombudsman, certain other public authorities and the Consumers’ Union of Finland. The Finnish class action proceedings are opt-in. Class actions are heard solely by the District Court of Helsinki.

In addition to the aforementioned class actions seeking redress for consumers, qualified entities can bring representative actions to prevent business operators from engaging in activities that cause or may cause harm to the collective interests of consumers. These representative actions for injunctive measures against businesses are covered by a separate act. The representative actions are heard in the Market Court.

There is no general obligation to provide the client with a preliminary estimate of the total costs of litigation.

However, if the client is represented by an attorney-at-law (a member of the Finnish Bar Association), the attorney-at-law must adhere to the Fee Guidelines issued by the Finnish Bar Association. According to these guidelines, when accepting the assignment, the attorney-at-law must disclose the applicable fee basis and billing practices, and provide a cost estimate for handling the matter upon the client’s request. The estimate is based on the information available at the time it is provided. If it becomes apparent during the course of the assignment that the estimated fee will be exceeded, the attorney-at-law must inform the client accordingly.

Before legal proceedings are initiated, the parties can apply for preliminary injunctions in cases where precautionary measures are needed to protect the value of a future claim (see 6. Injunctive Relief).

During legal proceedings, but before the substantive hearing of a claim, the parties may also make various case management-related motions, such as applications for extensions to time limits or for confidentiality orders.

In general, issues in dispute are decided only after the main hearing when the parties have had the chance to plead their respective cases. However, in certain circumstances, the court may issue a default judgment if the defendant fails to respond to the summons or appear in court, or the court may dismiss the case at the preliminary stage if the claim is clearly unfounded (see 3.6 Failure to Respond). The court may also decide various interim applications before the main hearing, sometimes without hearing the opposing party (see 4.1 Interim Applications/Motions and 6.3 Availability of Injunctive Relief on an Ex Parte Basis).

Furthermore, the court may render a separate partial judgment on an independent claim where several claims have been made in the same case, or it may decide an admitted part of a claim separately. A partial judgment enables a party to obtain an enforceable decision on part of the claims more quickly than resolving the rest of the case.

Furthermore, if a decision on an action depends on a decision on another action being considered in the same proceedings, the court may decide the latter action separately by first rendering an intermediate judgment. At the request of a party, the court may also decide an issue relating to the same claim by an intermediate judgment if the resolution of this issue is a prerequisite for deciding the claim in other respects. In this case, an intermediate judgment may only be rendered against the will of the opposing party for a special reason. Intermediate judgment can be useful, for example, in damages cases where liability can be established before the amount of damages is determined.

Intermediate and partial judgments are generally only issued once the parties have had the opportunity to present their cases on the claims or issues that are going to be decided by a partial or intermediate judgment. Depending on the case, this may happen at a hearing concerning only those claims or issues, or in a written proceedings if a hearing is not deemed necessary in order to decide the issues subject to the partial or intermediate judgment.

A party may raise a procedural objection before trial, if they consider that a procedural prerequisite is lacking. Such an objection may concern, for example, the existence of res judicata or lis pendens, the jurisdiction of the court, or the right of action as the proper party. If accepted, a procedural objection may result in the claim being struck out before the main hearing.

A procedural objection must be raised when the defendant first exercises their right to be heard in the case. Furthermore, all procedural objections should be raised together, if possible. If a procedural objection is raised later, it will not be considered unless it concerns a mandatory procedural prerequisite – ie, a matter that the court is obliged to take into account of its own accord. For example, objection to the jurisdiction of the court based on the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot be raised successfully at a later stage.

In Finland, it is possible for interested third parties to join lawsuits under a procedural concept known as intervention, provided that certain conditions are met. There are two legal avenues through which intervention may occur.

Firstly, a third party who brings a claim concerning the same subject matter as the original action, against one or both of the original parties, may request that their claim be adjudicated jointly with the original action. The substantive prerequisite for this type of intervention is that the third party claims that their rights regarding the subject of the dispute take precedence over those of the original parties. The claim must be brought to the same District Court where the original proceedings are taking place before those proceedings have been concluded.

Secondly, if the third party does not wish to bring their own suit in the matter, they may participate in the proceedings as an intervener, supporting either party, provided they can claim that the matter concerns their rights and provide plausible reasons in support of this claim.

In this case, the intervening party may act as a party in the proceedings, but will not automatically become one. The intervening party cannot amend the action or take measures that contradict those taken by a party, nor can they appeal a judgment or decision except alongside with a party. However, they may assume the status of a party to the proceedings if the judgment in the case is binding on them as if it had been issued in proceedings in which they were a party (res judicata). 

If a third party wishes to participate in the proceedings as an intervener, they must submit an application to this effect to the court. The original parties are given an opportunity to be heard on the application.

In Finland, it is not possible to apply for an order to require the claimant to pay a sum of money as security for the defendant’s legal costs (however, see 6.4 Liability for Damages for the Applicant, on security related to precautionary measures).

The legal costs of interim applications are generally considered alongside and under the same principles as the legal costs relating to the main procedure (see 11. Costs, on the general rules and 6.4 Liability for Damages for the Applicant, on costs related to precautionary measures).

The timeframe for an application to be dealt with by the court can vary considerably, ranging from days to months. Precautionary measures, for example, are often issued quickly as they are usually required urgently, whereas non-urgent matters typically take much longer. While a party may request that the court expedite the processing of an application on good grounds, the timeframe of the proceedings is solely at the court’s discretion.

Discovery, as it exists in common law jurisdictions, is not part of Finnish procedural law. However, courts may order a party or a third person to produce a document or object that may be used as evidence. See 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms.

The court can order a third party to produce a document or object that may be used as evidence, provided that certain conditions are met. See 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms.

See 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms.

The Finnish courts have the power to order the production of documents or objects that are in the possession of a party or third party. The document or object must be relevant as evidence in the case, and it must be shown that the document or object is in the possession of the person to whom the production request is addressed.

In practice, the party requesting the production of a document must be able to identify the document with sufficient precision for it to ultimately be enforceable. Sufficient identifying includes naming the issue to be proven by the document, its type and date of creation. Therefore, a party cannot successfully make general requests for all documents of a certain type, which makes the Finnish document production regime more restrictive in comparison to many other jurisdictions.

Legal privilege is recognised under Finnish law. The principles governing this privilege are derived from, inter alia, the Finnish Attorneys Act, the Code of Conduct for Attorneys at Law issued by the Delegation of the Finnish Bar Association and the Code of Judicial Procedure.

Communications between an attorney-at-law and their client are privileged. Legal privilege also applies to communications by and between the client, where privileged information is shared or discussed, even if the attorney-at-law is not involved in those communications. Communications with in-house counsel are only privileged insofar as they relate to the counsel’s role in legal proceedings within the meaning of the Code of Judicial Procedure.

In addition to legal privilege, there are several other rules that allow withholding information that would otherwise have to be disclosed. These rules cover, for example, trade secrets, state secrets, information subject to statutory confidentiality requirements, exceptions for close relatives and spouses, the protection of journalists’ sources, and the use of illegally obtained evidence.

The Code of Judicial Procedure provides Finnish courts with a wide discretion to order various types of precautionary measures to protect the value of a claim. Precautionary measures can be applied during or before legal proceedings are initiated. However, if legal proceedings are not already pending when the application for a precautionary measure is made, the applicant must initiate proceedings on the main issue within one month of the order granting the precautionary measure.

Receivables

If the applicant can demonstrate that they probably hold a debt that could be made payable by a court decision and there is a risk that the opposing party will hide, destroy or convey their assets, or take other actions that could jeopardise the payment of the applicant’s debt, the court may order the seizure of the opposing party’s assets up to the amount required to secure the payment of the applicant’s debt.

A Specific Object or Other Given Property

An object or other given property in the possession of the opposing party may also be seized if the applicant can demonstrate that they probably have a prior right to the object or property in question that would be enforceable by a decision and if there is a risk that the opposing party will hide, destroy or convey the object or property, or take other actions that would jeopardise the applicant’s rights.

Other Right or Claim

If the applicant can demonstrate that they probably have some other type of right that would be enforceable against the opposing party by a court decision and that there is a risk that the opposing party, by a deed, action or negligence, or in some other manner, hinders or undermines the realisation of the applicant’s right, or essentially decreases its value or significance, the court may:

• prohibit the opposing party’s deed or action, or order the opposing party to do something under threat of a fine;
• empower the applicant to do something or to have something done;
• order that the opposing party’s property be placed under the administration and care of a trustee; or
• order other measures necessary to secure the applicant’s right.

Anti-suit injunctions preventing parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction are not typical in Finland, and it is unclear whether they are allowed under Finnish law, as this matter has not been addressed explicitly in the Code of Judicial Procedure. However, the broad description of available precautionary measures discussed above arguably allows Finnish courts to issue such injunctions.

In general, the court must consider applications for precautionary measures as a matter of urgency. In the most urgent cases, the time between submitting an application to the court’s decision and its enforcement by the enforcement authority can be as short as a few hours.

In principle, an application for a precautionary measure cannot be granted without giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard. However, if the purpose of the precautionary measure might otherwise be compromised (ie, the opposing party might hide or lose their assets), the court may, at the applicant’s request, issue an interim order on the precautionary measure without giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard. In such cases, the opposing party is only heard after the precautionary measure has been enforced. After the hearing, the court makes a final decision on whether to uphold or dismiss the application.

Before a precautionary measure granted by the court can be enforced, the applicant must, with a few exceptions, lodge security for potential losses that the opposing party may incur as a result of the precautionary measure. If a precautionary measure granted by the court later proves to have been unnecessary, the applicant has strict liability to compensate the opposing party for any damages caused by the precautionary measure and its enforcement, as well as any expenses incurred. The opposing party must bring an action claiming such damages or costs within one year of the date on which the precautionary measure was cancelled, or if an appeal against the precautionary measure is still pending at that time, within one year of the date on which the final decision on the matter is rendered.

In principle, Finnish courts may grant precautionary measures that apply to the assets belonging to the opposing party located outside of Finland. However, in practice, the enforcement of such measures against a party’s foreign assets depends on the country in which enforcement is sought. The enforcement might not be possible in the absence of an international agreement between Finland and the relevant country. Enforcement in the EU member states is governed by the Recast Brussels I Regulation (see 9.5 Enforcement of a Judgment From a Foreign Country). The European Account Preservation Order procedure (Regulation EU No 655/2014) is also applicable in Finland, pursuant to which a precautionary measure concerning funds held in bank accounts located in other EU member states can be obtained.

Precautionary measures cannot be obtained against third parties. However, in cases where a third party is in possession of an object or assets belonging to the defendant, the enforcement of a precautionary measure could have practical implications for third parties as well.

If the respondent fails to comply with an order on a precautionary measure voluntarily, the measure can be enforced by the enforcement authority. The enforcement authority has a variety of methods at its disposal to enforce a decision, and ultimately it can request assistance from the police (see 9.4 Enforcement Mechanisms of a Domestic Judgment).

Preparatory Phase

Civil proceedings are initiated by filing an application for a summons to the competent District Court (see 3.4 Initial Complaint), after which the defendant is requested to provide a written response to the claim (see 3.5 Rules of Service). Once the defendant has responded, the court may, depending on the case, request additional written statements from the parties. The court will then usually organise a case management or preparatory hearing (see 7.2 Case Management Hearings) before proceeding to the main hearing.

During the preparatory phase, the court prepares a summary of the parties’ claims and the grounds for them. If necessary, the court also summarises the evidence and what each piece of evidence is intended to prove. This allows the parties to understand how the court has interpreted their submissions. The parties are then given an opportunity to express their opinions on the summary.

Main Hearing

Following the preparatory phase, the case will proceed to the main hearing. During the main hearing, the matter will be heard in the following order unless the court decides otherwise:

• the court briefly explains what has been concluded in the preparatory phase and inquires whether the claims presented previously still correspond to the parties’ positions;
• the parties give their oral opening statements, presenting the grounds for their claims and responding to the arguments advanced by the opposing party;
• the parties present their evidence to the court, including documentary evidence and oral testimonies, fact witnesses and experts are examined; and
• the parties give their oral closing statements, presenting their views on the submitted evidence and the legal issues relevant to the case, and express their opinions on how the case should be resolved.

The court may issue the judgment immediately after the hearing (which is rare in civil cases) or defer it to a later date.

Case management or preparatory hearings are commonly held during the preparatory phase of civil proceedings, before proceeding to the main hearing. The case management or preparatory hearing build on the written preparation (ie, the parties’ briefs and the court’s summary) that has already taken place. Arguing about the merits of the case should be reserved for the main hearing. Instead, the case management or preparatory hearing should focus on the objectives of the preparatory phase: preparing the case for the main hearing by clarifying the relevant issues and points of disagreement.

In Finland, jury trials are not available in civil cases.

The rules governing the admission of evidence in civil cases are set out in the Code of Judicial Procedure. The means of evidence include the following:

• hearing the parties for the purpose of giving evidence;
• hearing witnesses;
• expert evidence;
• documentary evidence; and
• inspection (of an object or place, for example).

The principle of free evaluation of evidence is applied, meaning that the court is not restricted by any formal rules when determining the credibility or weight of certain evidence. Instead, the court may assess the probative value of evidence at its own discretion.

The principle of immediacy is also essential, whereby the court may only consider evidence that is presented during the main hearing, with certain exceptions. In principle, written witness testimonies are not allowed and witnesses must give their testimony orally during the main hearing. However, expert witnesses give their testimony in writing (see 7.5 Expert Testimony).

In certain circumstances, the court has the power to prohibit the use of evidence. For example, the court should reject evidence that:

• concerns a circumstance that is not relevant to the case;
• is otherwise unnecessary;
• can be replaced by evidence that is available at essentially less cost or with less difficulty;
• can be replaced by evidence that is essentially more credible; or that
• could not be obtained despite appropriate measures, and the decision in the matter can no longer be delayed.

See also 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document on situations where the use of evidence can be restricted.

Expert testimony is permitted at trial. The parties and the court on its own initiative may introduce expert testimonies. In practice, however, courts do not usually introduce expert evidence of their own accord in civil cases, since the parties bear ultimate responsibility for their respective claims.

Experts must provide the court with a written statement before the main hearing so that all parties and the court can familiarise themselves with the issues discussed by the expert. While an oral examination of the expert is not mandatory, it can be conducted if the court deems it necessary or if requested by a party.

Unless there are specific statutory grounds to the contrary, hearings are open to public, meaning that everyone has the right to attend a hearing. As with court documents and proceedings in general, the court may decide to hold hearings partially or entirely behind closed doors if confidential matters are to be discussed. The reasons for such confidentiality are similar to those that apply to court documents and proceedings in general (see 1.3. Court Filings and Proceedings).

Typically, judges are not very interventionist in civil cases, particularly not in commercial cases where the parties are represented by experienced legal counsel. However, some level of proactivity is commonplace, and in some respects even obligatory. For example, if a party’s written or oral statement is unclear or incomplete, the court must request that they clarify their position. Judges are also allowed to question witnesses and experts during their examination.

In civil cases, courts do not usually issue the judgment immediately after the hearing but rather reserve it for a later date. In extensive and complex disputes, the Code of Judicial Procedure allows the court to issue the judgment within 14 days of the conclusion of the main hearing or at a later date if there is a special reason. This exception is widely applied in commercial cases.

See also 7.1 Trial Proceedings and 7.4 Rules That Govern Admission of Evidence.

The timeframe for civil court proceedings can vary significantly. From initiation to judgment, the duration of proceedings can range from a few months to several years, depending on the type of the dispute and the District Court involved. For commercial disputes involving significant value and complexity, the duration is typically longer. For example, the average duration for civil cases involving damages in the Helsinki District Court was 34.4 months in 2024.

The preparatory phase before the main hearing is usually the longest part of the proceedings. Once the main hearing has been conducted, the judgment is typically rendered within a reasonable timeframe. However, if the District Court’s judgment is appealed, the proceedings will continue for a considerably longer period.

Apart from certain civil cases in which settlement is not allowed (for example, cases relating to child custody), the parties are permitted to settle their dispute at any stage of court proceedings.

In principle, the settlement agreement between the parties is a private contract that does not require court approval. However, the parties may ask the court to confirm their settlement to render it directly enforceable, in which case court approval is required. The court may not confirm a settlement that is contrary to the law, is clearly unreasonable, or violates the rights of a third party.

If the parties reach a settlement agreement and do not ask the court to confirm it, the agreement does not become public, and the parties may also agree on confidentiality undertakings.

However, if the court is requested to confirm the settlement, the settlement agreement will become an official court document that is public by default. Aside from the parts necessary for enforcing the agreement, it may be kept confidential in certain cases (see 1.3 Court Filings and Proceedings and 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document on the grounds for confidentiality).

Private settlement agreements which have not been confirmed by the court are ordinary agreements that are enforced in the same way as any other private contract. In practice, such agreements are not enforceable without further legal action.

By contrast, court-confirmed settlement agreements are comparable to judgments and are thus enforceable without further legal action.

Like any other private agreement, private settlement agreements which have not been confirmed by the court can be set aside upon legal action, based on ordinary general contract law rules.

On the other hand, court-confirmed settlement agreements do not become legally binding immediately, but only once the time limits for expressing dissatisfaction with the court’s decision to confirm the settlement, and for filing an appeal against it, have expired, or when an appeal against the confirmation of the settlement has been decided upon. Such an appeal could relate to the scope of the settlement, for example. However, the parties may agree that the agreement becomes binding immediately, in which case an appeal is not available.

In outline, courts may render three types of judgments.

• Executory judgment – the defendant is obliged to a certain performance, such as paying monetary damages or refraining from or tolerating a certain action.
• Declaratory judgment – the court confirms whether a certain legal relationship exists or not. For example, the court may declare a contract invalid or confirm ownership of an object.
• Constitutive judgment – the judgment itself alters an existing legal relationship or status. For example, the court may issue a judgment revoking a person’s legal paternity.

Finnish law on damages follows the principle of full compensation, meaning that, in general, individuals who incur harm are entitled to compensation for their entire loss. However, an equally important principle is that the injured party should not gain a financial advantage through damages; in other words, they should be restored to their financial position prior to the damaging event. Therefore, punitive damages are not available under Finnish law.

As a procedural note, courts are not allowed to award damages in excess of the amount claimed. The courts may, however, reduce the amount of damages awarded if full compensation would result in an unreasonable outcome.

Under Finnish law, the concepts of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are not recognised. Instead, a successful party may collect default interest under the Finnish Interest Act. The date from which default interest accrues depends on the situation. The most common situations are as follows.

• If the due date of a debt has been set in advance in a manner that is binding on the debtor, interest for late payment must be paid from the due date onwards.
• If the due date has not been set in advance in a manner that is binding on the debtor, interest for late payment must be paid 30 days after the creditor sent an invoice to the debtor or otherwise requested payment of a fixed amount. However, the debtor is not liable to pay interest for late payment for the period preceding the receipt of the invoice or request.
• For compensation of damages, interest for late payment must be paid 30 days after the creditor presented their claim and provided reasonable information regarding the basis and amount of the compensation.
• If the claim is first presented in legal proceedings, interest begins to accrue from either the date on which the application for a summons is served to the defendant or the date on which the claim is presented, if it is submitted later in the proceedings.
• If the court awards legal costs, interest begins to accrue one month after the compensation is awarded.

The amount of interest payable for late payment is 7% or 8% above the European Central Bank’s reference rate.

In Finland, the National Enforcement Authority is responsible for the enforcement of judgments. Enforcement may involve payment obligations, the transfer of property (whether immovable or movable), eviction or an obligation to vacate certain premises, an obligation to perform a certain act, a prohibition against performing a certain act, or an obligation to permit another party to perform a certain act, as well as seizures or other precautionary measures.

Final judgments are directly enforceable. The situation is different in relation to judgments that have not become final – ie, where the appeal period has not ended or an appeal is pending. In such cases, enforcement usually requires the party seeking enforcement to provide security, and it may be prevented if the other party provides security.

The enforcement of a foreign civil judgment depends on the nature of the judgment and the country in which it was issued. Foreign civil judgments will only be recognised and enforced if recognition is provided for in an international treaty binding on Finland, or in applicable EU legislation or national law.

For EU member states, the most relevant regulation is the Recast Brussels I Regulation. Under this regulation, civil judgments issued within the EU are directly enforceable and do not require confirmation of their enforceability by a Finnish District Court. For other countries, enforcement requires the District Court to first declare that the judgment is enforceable. This applies to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, for example,  to which the Lugano Convention applies.

The general court system consists of District Courts, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court (see 1.2 Court System). Judgments from District Courts can be appealed to the Courts of Appeal, and judgments from the Courts of Appeal can be appealed to the Supreme Court. In certain exceptional circumstances, it is possible to lodge an appeal against a District Court decision directly with the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

In all civil cases, a party wishing to appeal a District Court judgment to the Court of Appeal must first be granted a leave for continued consideration. The Court of Appeal must grant the leave if:

• there is reason as to doubt the correctness of the outcome of the decision;
• it is not possible to assess the correctness of the outcome of the decision without granting leave;
• in view of the application of the law in other similar matters, it is important to grant leave in the given case; or
• if there are other weighty reasons for granting the leave.

The above criteria are interpreted in a manner favourable to the applicant. In practice, the threshold for granting the leave is fairly low. However, if the appeal is sought solely for the re-evaluation of evidence, the threshold is somewhat higher.

To appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, leave to appeal must be requested from the Supreme Court. The threshold for granting leave is significantly higher in the Supreme Court than in the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court grants leave in less than 10% of cases.

The Supreme Court only grants leave to appeal if:

• it is important to have the matter decided by the Supreme Court for the sake of consistent application of the law in similar cases, or for the uniformity of legal practice;
• there is a special reason for it, such as a procedural or other error that has been made in the case, on the basis of which the decision should be reversed or annulled; or
• there are other weighty reasons for granting leave.

The primary basis for granting leave is the first one, while the latter two are applied more exceptionally.

Appealing a District Court Decision

The first step in appealing a District Court judgment to the Court of Appeal is to file a declaration of intent to appeal. This must be submitted to the District Court that rendered the judgment no later than seven days after the judgment was rendered. Next, the actual appeal document must be filed with the same District Court within 30 days of the judgment being rendered. The District Court will then forward the appeal document to the relevant Court of Appeal. The content of the appeal document is set out in the Code of Judicial Procedure and must include, for example, information on which parts of the judgment are requested to be reviewed and the grounds thereof.

Appealing a Court of Appeal Decision

The time limit for requesting leave to appeal a Court of Appeal judgment and for filing the appeal with the Supreme Court is 60 days from the date the Court of Appeal’s decision was rendered. The documents must be submitted to the Court of Appeal, which will then forward them to the Supreme Court. The request for leave must indicate the basis of the request (see 10.2 Rules Concerning Appeals of Judgments on the acceptable grounds). The appeal document must indicate, inter alia:

• in what respects a review of the Court of Appeal’s decision is requested;
• what changes are requested in the decision; and
• the grounds for the requested changes.

The Court of Appeal may only consider issues that have been raised in the appeal and the possible response to it. The appellant may not refer to circumstances or evidence other than those presented in the lower instance, unless they can establish that they were unable to refer to the circumstance or evidence in the lower instance, or that they had a justifiable reason for not doing so.

The court cannot impose conditions for granting leave for continued consideration or leave to appeal. However, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court may grant leave only for certain parts of the lower court’s judgment.

Following an appeal hearing, the appellate court has broad discretion to uphold, overturn or modify the lower court’s judgment, either in full or in part. In some cases, the appellate court may also remand the case to the lower court for reconsideration. This may be necessary, for example, if a case has been dismissed on procedural grounds in the lower court. However, the appellate court is always bound by the claims presented in the case. The lower court’s judgment cannot be amended to the detriment of the appellant unless the opposing party has also appealed against it.

As a general rule, the losing party is required to reimburse the prevailing party for their costs of litigation.

In cases involving multiple claims, where some are decided in favour of the claimant and some in favour of the defendant, the parties may be required to bear their own costs of litigation. This may also apply if the issue that caused the outcome of the case was unknown to the losing party before the trial.

Furthermore, if the prevailing party is only partially successful in their claim, or if the legal issue in dispute has been so unclear that the losing party had a justified reason to have the matter decided in legal proceedings, they may be ordered to bear all or part of their own costs.

It is also possible that the prevailing party is ordered to compensate the losing party for their reasonable and necessary costs of litigation. This may occur if the prevailing party initiated legal proceedings without reason or otherwise caused an unnecessary trial through carelessness or intent.

Reimbursable expenses include court fees, counsel fees and other expenses, such as witness and expert fees. Compensation must also be paid for work caused by the proceedings and for losses directly linked to them.

A court’s order on costs can be appealed either together with an appeal on the merits, or by appealing solely against the order on costs.

For costs of litigation to be compensable, they must be reasonable, and they must relate to measures that have been necessary to protect the rights of the party concerned.

When assessing reasonableness, the court may consider the relationship between the total costs and the value and significance of the case to the party, for example. Counsel fees should correspond to the complexity of the case in terms of both the amount and the time allocated to each task.

The court must reduce the legal costs awarded against a party on its own motion if, considering the circumstances, the parties’ positions, and the significance of the case, requiring payment of the opposing side’s costs would be unreasonable. The necessity of the costs is assessed based on the circumstances in which they were incurred. Thus, even if a particular measure that led to costs later proves unnecessary, reimbursement is not precluded if the measure was appropriate at the time.

If a party requests it, interest shall accrue on compensation for costs of litigation starting one month after the date of the costs order. The interest rate is 7% higher than the European Central Bank’s reference rate.

In Finland, alternative dispute resolution is widely regarded as an effective way of resolving disputes, often offering significant savings in terms of time and costs.

The most common forms of alternative dispute resolution include court-annexed mediation, out-of-court mediation and arbitration. Dispute boards are also sometimes used, particularly for complex construction projects.

The court is obliged to make efforts to help the parties reach a settlement. If the court deems it expedient to promote a settlement, taking into account the parties’ wishes, the nature of the matter, and other circumstances, the court may also make a proposal to the parties for an amicable settlement. However, this occurs quite rarely in practice.

Often, courts also inform the parties that court-annexed mediation is an alternative option to litigation and ask whether the parties are willing to participate in such mediation. Participation in court-annexed mediation is voluntary and does not constitute a formal part of the proceedings, despite it being administered by the court. A party will not face any legal consequences for declining to participate in such mediation.

The institutions in Finland that provide and promote alternative dispute resolution are generally well organised and credible.

The most notable institution is the Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (FAI), which offers arbitration and mediation services.

In addition, the Finnish Bar Association offers rules for out-of-court mediation conducted by attorneys-at-law. Another notable ADR institution is the Finnish Forum for Mediation, which promotes mediation by bringing together expertise in the field through communication, education and collaboration with other mediation stakeholders.

In Finland, arbitration proceedings and the enforcement of arbitral awards are governed by the Arbitration Act. The integral parts of the Arbitration Act align with the UNCITRAL Model Law. Finland has ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards without any reservations.

Under the Arbitration Act, any dispute relating to a defined legal relationship in a civil or commercial matter that the parties are legally permitted to settle by mutual agreement may be submitted to arbitration. Exceptions to arbitrability are limited and include public law matters, such as criminal proceedings, and a narrow category of civil law matters in which the parties are not legally permitted to reach a binding settlement without court or public authority involvement (certain family law issues, for example).

There are two distinct legal avenues for challenging an arbitral award. Firstly, an award may be declared null and void, in which case it can be challenged without time limit. According to the Arbitration Act, an award is considered null and void:

• to the extent that the arbitrators have decided in the award an issue that is incapable of resolution by arbitration;
• to the extent that the recognition of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Finland;
• if the arbitration award is so obscure or incomplete that it does not indicate how the dispute has been decided; or
• if the arbitration award has not been made in writing or signed by the arbitrators.

Secondly, an arbitration award may be set aside by the court upon the request of a party if:

• the arbitrators have exceeded their authority;
• an arbitrator has not been properly appointed;
• an arbitrator could have been challenged due to disqualification, but a properly made challenge by a party was not accepted before the arbitration award was issued, or a party became aware of the grounds for a challenge so late that they were unable to challenge the arbitrator before the arbitration award was issued; or
• the arbitrators had not given a party sufficient opportunity to present their case.

An action to set aside the award must be brought within three months of the party receiving a copy of the award.

In order to enforce an arbitral award, a party must submit an enforcement application to the District Court, including either the original arbitration agreement and award, or certified copies thereof. If these documents are not in Finnish or Swedish, a certified translation is required, unless the court waives this requirement.

The party against whom enforcement is sought must be given an opportunity to be heard, unless there is a special reason to the contrary. The court will approve the enforcement application unless one of the exceptional circumstances outlined in the Arbitration Act applies. The grounds for declining the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards are similar to those set out in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

The Ministry of Justice has set up a working group to assess ways of strengthening the rule of law and developing the Finnish judicial system. The group is developing various measures to streamline civil proceedings, including potential amendments to the current procedural rules.

Reform of the Finnish Arbitration Act is also currently underway. The proposal for reforming the Arbitration Act is expected to be introduced to the parliament in 2026.

Common areas of commercial disputes in Finland include services, sales and purchases, construction projects, and shareholder relations. In terms of potential growth areas, we expect to see an increase in disputes relating to energy projects in the future, given the significant rise in clean energy investments in Finland. The market is growing rapidly, with multi-billion-euro investment decisions already made and more in the pipeline. As a result, disputes are also likely to arise over time. In the coming years, an increase in disputes concerning ESG and AI issues are anticipated due to growing regulation and the implementation of new technologies.

Please see the Finland Trends and Developments article in this guide for more information on current trends in the Finnish dispute resolution landscape.