The main dispute resolution methods for commercial disputes in Finland are litigation before the general courts and arbitration. In addition, mediation and other consensual methods are available either as standalone processes or alongside court or arbitration proceedings. In particular, mediation is gaining momentum.

Both litigation and arbitration are widely used in Finland.

Litigation is more common in terms of volume, whereas arbitration is typically preferred in commercial contracts between businesses.

Arbitration is commonly agreed as the default dispute resolution mechanism in international agreements involving Finnish parties, as well as in medium-sized and large domestic transactions.

Arbitration is commonly preferred as a dispute resolution method in, among other things, share purchase agreements and M&A disputes, shareholder and joint venture disputes, construction and energy projects, technology agreements, and in international commercial contracts.

Litigation before the courts is more common in smaller commercial disputes, debt collection matters, and insolvency-related disputes.

Mediation is rarely used as a primary mechanism in domestic disputes and in dispute resolution clauses between domestic parties, but it is increasingly considered as a complementary step before formal proceedings. A multi-tiered dispute resolution clause, with mediation as a mandatory step before arbitration, is more common in international settings but remains less common than a simple arbitration clause (possibly preceded by negotiations).

A key trend is the increasing use of settlement mechanisms in commercial disputes. Parties are more willing to explore negotiated solutions at an early stage, both in litigation and arbitration. Court-annexed mediation is also gaining traction as a practical and cost-efficient tool.

In addition to the more traditional types of construction disputes, disputes in the energy sector have become more prominent, reflecting market volatility, transition-related investments and evolving regulatory frameworks.

Technology-related disputes are also on the rise, for instance in connection with IT outsourcing arrangements, where issues often concern service levels, delivery failures and allocation of liability.

In addition, the increasing use of AI is beginning to generate new types of disputes, including questions relating to the ownership of AI-generated outputs, allocation of liability, and risks of infringement or plagiarism.

Finally, the increase in defence spending has led to disputes in the defence sector.

Limitation periods in Finland depend on the type of claim and its legal basis. There is no single universal limitation period – instead, the applicable limitation period is determined by the specific legal relationship underlying the claim.

The general limitation period for contractual and non-contractual monetary claims under the Finnish Act on the Limitations of Debts is three years. In addition, most compensation claims are subject to a ten-year long-stop period, which runs from the breach of contract or the event that caused the damage or unjust enrichment.

The starting point of the limitation period depends on the nature of the claim. Where a due date has been agreed in advance, the limitation period generally begins to run from that due date. If no due date has been agreed, such as in certain sales transactions, the limitation period typically begins when the creditor has performed its contractual obligation, for example, when the goods or services have been delivered.

For damages and other compensation claims, the limitation period generally begins when the injured party becomes aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the defect, loss or other basis for the claim and the party responsible for it. Similar principles apply to claims based on unjust enrichment.

Limitation periods may be interrupted by certain actions, such as presenting a written demand or initiating legal proceedings. Once the limitation period is interrupted, a new limitation period begins to run. Continuous monitoring of deadlines is therefore essential in commercial disputes.

Finland has a dual court system consisting of general courts and administrative courts. Commercial disputes between private parties are handled by the general courts.

The general courts operate on three levels. District courts act as courts of first instance and examine both facts and law. A party dissatisfied with a judgment or decision of a district court may generally appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal will usually only examine the case if it grants leave to appeal, which is required in most civil cases.

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial instance. An appeal to the Supreme Court requires leave to appeal, which is granted only on limited grounds. These typically include situations where the case is important for establishing legal precedent or ensuring consistent interpretation of the law, where there has been a serious procedural error that could justify reopening the case, or where another significant reason supports review.

In addition, Finland has a separate system of administrative courts. These courts review decisions made by public authorities. Administrative courts act as first-instance courts in most administrative matters, and appeals are heard by the Supreme Administrative Court. Leave to appeal is generally required for cases to be heard by the Supreme Administrative Court, and the criteria for granting leave largely correspond to those applied by the Supreme Court in civil matters.

Administrative courts do not resolve contractual disputes between private parties but play an important role in regulatory, tax, public procurement and other public law-related disputes affecting businesses.

There are also specialised courts with jurisdiction over specific subject matters. Most notably, the market court handles competition law, public procurement and certain intellectual property matters, while certain maritime, insurance and labour disputes are heard by designated courts with specialised competence.

Finnish law does not impose extensive formal pre-action conduct requirements comparable to those found in some common law jurisdictions. There is no mandatory general pre-action protocol that parties must follow before initiating litigation.

However, in practice, parties typically send written demands or engage in negotiations before commencing proceedings. In addition, the Code of Conduct of the Finnish Bar Association requires that an attorney should not – without a special reason – initiate legal proceedings without first giving the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to consider the matter and attempt an amicable resolution.

Failure to attempt settlement does not usually render the proceedings inadmissible or prevent the court from hearing the case. However, in some cases, the parties’ pre-action conduct may also be considered when the court decides on costs. In addition, an attorney breaching the Code of Conduct may be subject to supervision and possible disciplinary measures within the Bar framework.

Civil proceedings in Finland generally consist of written and oral phases. Proceedings are front-loaded, with significant emphasis on preparatory exchanges before the main hearing.

The main stages typically include:

• filing of the statement of claim;
• submission of a written response by the defendant;
• written preparatory submissions and possible preparatory hearings;
• the main hearing, where evidence and witness testimony are presented orally; and
• deliberation and written judgment

The preparatory phase aims to clarify the claims, legal grounds and evidence to ensure that the main hearing can be conducted efficiently. The main hearing is usually concentrated and may last from one day to several weeks or, in complex cases, months.

Proceedings before the market court are varied in nature but, in general, they progress faster than the proceedings in civil courts. The general structure is, however, the same.

The overall duration of proceedings varies depending on the complexity of the case and the stage of the proceedings. Straightforward commercial cases may be resolved within 12 to 18 months at first instance, while complex disputes or cases involving extensive evidence may take longer. Appeals typically add an additional one to two years.

Handling times also vary between courts. The busiest district courts, such as Helsinki, Itä-Uusimaa and Länsi-Uusimaa, generally have longer processing times than courts with a lighter caseload.

Court proceedings in Finland are generally public. Hearings are open to the public, and judgments are publicly available. This reflects the constitutional principle of transparency in court proceedings.

However, the court may order that parts of the proceedings or certain documents must remain confidential if they contain trade secrets, sensitive business information or personal data. In such cases, the court balances the principle of openness against the need to protect legitimate confidentiality interests.

Certain types of disputes, such as those involving minors or sensitive personal matters, may involve broader confidentiality protections. In commercial litigation, confidentiality is typically limited to specific documents or evidence rather than the entire proceeding.

Finnish courts may grant a range of interim measures to secure a party’s rights pending final resolution of a dispute. Interim relief is available where the applicant demonstrates a plausible claim and a risk that enforcement of the final judgment would otherwise be jeopardised or that significant harm could occur.

Common types of interim relief include:

• attachment of assets, which secures a monetary claim by freezing the opposing party’s property;
• prohibitory injunctions preventing a party from taking certain actions; and
• mandatory injunctions requiring a party to take specific steps.

Interim relief is regularly sought in commercial disputes, particularly where there is a risk of asset dissipation, ongoing contractual breaches, or in connection with prohibitory injunctions. The courts typically require the applicant to provide security for potential damages caused by the interim measure.

A specific type of interim measure exists in the field of intellectual property, resulting from the implementation of the EU Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC). In addition to the general interim measures available under the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure, the courts may order measures aimed at securing evidence in intellectual property disputes, for example, by ordering the seizure of relevant materials or otherwise preserving evidence where there is a risk that it may be lost or destroyed.

In commercial litigation, the most common form of final relief is a monetary judgment awarding damages or payment of an outstanding debt. The courts may also order specific performance where appropriate.

Other available remedies include:

• declaratory judgments confirming the existence or absence of rights;
• injunctions prohibiting certain conduct;
• termination or rescission of contracts; and
• adjustment of contractual terms in limited circumstances.

Damages in Finland are primarily compensatory. The general principle is full compensation for proven loss, covering both direct and, where applicable, indirect losses. Punitive damages are not recognised under Finnish law.

The claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and amount of loss, as well as causation. The courts assess the damages based on the evidence presented. The courts may exercise discretion where exact quantification is difficult, provided that the existence of damage has been established.

Contractual limitations of liability are generally enforceable in commercial relationships, subject to mandatory law and reasonableness considerations. In practice, indirect damages are often carved out in commercial contracts, except for intentional misconduct or gross negligence.

Careful documentation and expert evidence often play a central role in substantiating damages claims in complex commercial disputes.       

Arbitration is a widely used method in Finland for resolving commercial disputes. In many commercial contracts, arbitration is agreed as the default dispute resolution mechanism.

Disputes commonly referred to arbitration include:

• M&A and shareholder disputes;
• construction and infrastructure disputes;
• energy and industrial project disputes;
• technology, supply and distribution agreements; and
• cross-border transactions, almost regardless of the type of transaction.

The use of arbitration is especially prevalent where parties seek confidentiality, procedural flexibility and enforceability across borders. The length of commercial litigation in Finnish courts has also increasingly incentivised parties to resort to arbitration.

Finnish law is generally arbitration-friendly, and most commercial disputes can be referred to arbitration. The key requirement is that the dispute concerns a matter that the parties may settle by agreement.

Certain types of disputes cannot be resolved by arbitration. These typically include criminal matters, certain family law issues and other matters involving strong public interest or mandatory statutory protections – in other words, matters that cannot be settled by an agreement of the parties.

In commercial practice, restrictions on arbitrability rarely present obstacles, as most business disputes are considered arbitrable.

Arbitration is perceived as offering several advantages in Finland. Arbitration’s (relative) speed and confidentiality are often decisive factors, particularly in disputes involving trade secrets, sensitive financial information or reputational concerns.

Other commonly cited advantages include:

• the ability to appoint arbitrators with specific industry expertise;
• flexible, efficient and tailor-made procedures;
• the finality of awards, with limited grounds for challenge; and
• ease of international enforcement under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”).

The main perceived disadvantage of arbitration is cost. Arbitrators’ fees and institutional costs can be significant, particularly in high-value disputes involving three-member tribunals, whereas litigation in public courts is more cost-efficient if the matter is resolved in the first instance (albeit it may take a long time).

Limited appeal possibilities may also be viewed as a drawback. While finality is often considered an advantage, parties have only narrow grounds to challenge an award, even if they disagree with the tribunal’s legal or factual assessment.

In addition, arbitration lacks the same direct coercive powers as courts in certain procedural matters, which may require court assistance. For smaller disputes, litigation before state courts may therefore be a more cost-effective option.

The Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (FAI) is the leading arbitral institution in Finland. The FAI Rules are widely used, especially in domestic but also in international disputes seated in Finland. In cross-border contracts, parties also frequently refer disputes to other institutions, such as – and primarily – the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) or the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Other institutional rules tend to be less frequently used, although contracts with counterparties based in the United States of America occasionally refer to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association (ICDR), and contracts with Asian counterparties may refer to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) or the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).

The duration of arbitration proceedings depends on the complexity and scale of the dispute. In practice, the duration of standard commercial arbitrations may vary significantly depending on factors such as the volume of evidence, the complexity of the dispute and the procedural timetable adopted by the tribunal.

Recent data from the FAI and SCC suggests that proceedings are often resolved relatively efficiently. The data indicates median durations of approximately nine months under standard rules.

Expedited procedures are available under institutional rules and are designed to ensure faster resolution of disputes. For example, both the FAI and SCC expedited rules provide that the final award will typically be rendered within approximately three months from the referral of the case to the arbitrator, subject to possible extensions in exceptional circumstances. In practice, expedited proceedings are typically concluded within a few months. Data from the FAI indicates a median duration of approximately three months, while SCC statistics show that a clear majority of expedited cases are resolved within six months.

The Finnish Arbitration Act

Arbitration in Finland is governed by the Finnish Arbitration Act, which regulates arbitration agreements, the constitution of tribunals, the conduct of proceedings, and the recognition, enforcement and setting aside of awards. The Act applies to both domestic and international arbitration proceedings.

A comprehensive reform of the Arbitration Act is currently underway. The reform is expected to result in the enactment of a new Arbitration Act that is more closely aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, both in structure and substance. The objective is to modernise the legislative framework, improve clarity and enhance Finland’s attractiveness as a seat for international arbitration.

Key proposed changes include, for example, the removal of the formal written form requirement for arbitration agreements and the introduction of clearer rules on the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. The reform also strengthens the role of arbitral tribunals by expressly recognising their competence to rule on their own jurisdiction and by introducing provisions on tribunal-ordered interim measures, which would exist alongside the courts’ powers.

The new Act, if adopted, is expected to enter into force in 2027.

International Conventions and Treaties

Finland is a party to the New York Convention. This ensures that arbitral awards rendered in Finland are widely enforceable internationally and likewise, that foreign arbitral awards can be recognised and enforced in Finland.

Finland is also a party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) and had entered into 82 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) at the time of writing this article, providing a framework for investor-state dispute resolution. In addition, Finland is a contracting state party to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).

However, note that the role of the ECT and other intra-EU investment treaties have lost some of their relevance following the CJEU’s Achmea ruling and its subsequent approach to intra-EU investment arbitration.

Finnish courts play a supportive role in arbitration and may, for example:

• assist in the appointment of arbitrators if a party fails to act in accordance with the agreed procedure;
• decide on challenges to arbitrators in some cases;
• grant interim measures before or during arbitration; and
• enforce arbitral awards.       

Court intervention in arbitration is limited and occurs only in situations expressly provided by law.

A court may decline jurisdiction in favour of arbitration where a valid and applicable arbitration agreement exists and a party invokes it. In this context, the court may assess the existence and scope of the arbitration agreement. Although the current Finnish Arbitration Act does not contain an explicit provision on competence-competence, it is generally accepted in Finnish legal practice that arbitral tribunals may rule on their own jurisdiction. In practice, courts tend to exercise restraint and will typically refer the matter to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is clearly invalid, inapplicable or incapable of being performed.

Finnish courts have also, in certain circumstances, assessed arbitration agreements from the perspective of reasonableness when there has been a clear imbalance between the parties. The Supreme Court has held that an arbitration clause may be disregarded under general contract law principles if its application would unreasonably restrict a party’s access to justice, for example, due to disproportionate arbitration costs. This has been emphasised in cases involving individuals or parties in a comparably weaker position. For example, in a case concerning an employment-related dispute, the Supreme Court found that enforcing an arbitration clause against an individual employee would have been unreasonable, and the dispute was therefore allowed to proceed before the general courts.

In addition, courts may assist in matters relating to the constitution and functioning of the arbitral tribunal, including the appointment of arbitrators and, in certain circumstances, issues relating to arbitrators’ fees.

The courts also have an independent role in granting interim measures in support of arbitration. Under Finnish law, parties may seek interim relief from the courts irrespective of the existence or stage of the arbitration, and such measures are granted and enforced by the courts.

After an award has been rendered, a party may apply to set it aside on specific procedural grounds. These grounds include serious procedural irregularities, excess of mandate or lack of a valid arbitration agreement. The courts do not review the merits of the case.

Overall, the threshold for successful challenges is high, reflecting Finland’s pro-arbitration stance.

Arbitral tribunals may grant the same types of substantive relief as courts in commercial matters, provided that the dispute is arbitrable, and the relief is recognised under the applicable law. Available relief includes monetary damages, declaratory relief and orders for specific performance, subject to the limits of the parties’ claims, applicable substantive law and Finland’s public policy. Arbitral tribunals may not grant relief that falls within the exclusive powers of the state, such as criminal sanctions or tax measures.

Arbitral tribunals may also order interim measures within the framework of the applicable arbitration rules, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. However, such measures are not enforceable under Finnish law and do not give rise to direct enforcement mechanisms before the courts. In practice, interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunals may still have practical significance, even without enforceability, as parties are often reluctant to act in breach of such orders.

Instead, parties may apply for interim relief from the competent courts, which retain independent jurisdiction to grant interim measures irrespective of the existence or stage of the arbitration. The courts can grant the same types of interim measures in aid of arbitration as in civil proceedings, including asset attachment and various forms of injunctive relief. Court-ordered interim relief in aid of arbitration is relatively common.

In addition to litigation and arbitration, several alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures are available in Finland. The most commonly used ADR mechanism in commercial disputes is mediation.

Mediation may take place as private mediation, institution-based mediation or court-annexed mediation. Private mediation is conducted by an independent mediator chosen by the parties, often a lawyer or other professional with experience in dispute resolution. The process is flexible and based on voluntary participation, allowing the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement with the assistance of the mediator.

Institution-based mediation is also available, for example, under the FAI Mediation Rules or the ICC Mediation Rules. These frameworks provide structured rules and administrative support, which may be particularly useful in more complex or cross-border disputes.

Court-annexed mediation is conducted under the supervision of a judge acting as mediator. It is initiated either at the request of the parties or upon the suggestion of the court. Court-annexed mediation may be undertaken in parallel to ongoing litigation proceedings or independently of any litigation. It is required that a different judge acts as mediator to the judge hearing the case at trial. The mediator may not disclose the content of the mediation to the trial judge, and the parties may not rely in subsequent proceedings on statements or settlement proposals made during the mediation.

Other consensual methods, such as structured settlement negotiations or expert determination, may also be used in certain commercial contexts, particularly where the dispute concerns technical or valuation issues. No specific local rules govern these types of proceedings, however.

Finnish law does not generally require parties to engage in ADR before initiating litigation or arbitration, and the courts do not hold the power to impose court-ordered mediation on parties. Parties are free to commence formal proceedings without first attempting mediation or other settlement mechanisms.

However, members of the Finnish Bar are subject to professional rules of conduct which require them, as a general principle, to seek an amicable resolution of disputes where appropriate. In particular, an attorney should not, without a justified reason, initiate legal proceedings without first presenting the client’s claims to the opposing party, allowing a reasonable time for response and providing an opportunity to resolve the matter amicably. Attorneys are also expected to assess, throughout the assignment, whether settlement or alternative dispute resolution methods could be appropriate.

Parties may also agree contractually to engage in ADR before pursuing litigation or arbitration. Such multi-tier clauses may require negotiation or mediation as a preliminary step in the dispute resolution process.

Failure to comply with an agreed ADR step may have procedural consequences, such as a temporary suspension of proceedings or consideration in the allocation of legal costs. Nevertheless, courts and tribunals typically prioritise access to justice and will not permanently prevent a party from pursuing its claims.

Engaging in ADR does not generally prevent a party from subsequently initiating litigation or arbitration if a settlement cannot be reached. While parties may agree on multi-tier dispute resolution clauses requiring negotiation or mediation as a preliminary step, such arrangements typically affect the timing or admissibility of proceedings rather than excluding access to litigation or arbitration.

Mediation and other ADR processes are voluntary, unless agreed otherwise by the parties. They are also non-binding unless the parties reach a settlement agreement. If the parties successfully resolve their dispute through ADR, the settlement agreement is typically formalised as a binding contract.

In court-annexed mediation, the settlement may also be confirmed by the court, which gives it the same enforceability as a court judgment.

In arbitration, the parties may request the tribunal to record the settlement in an award by consent, which gives the settlement the status and enforceability of an arbitral award.

ADR may take place at any stage of a dispute in Finland. Typically, parties attempt negotiations or mediation before initiating formal proceedings. This is often motivated by the desire to resolve the dispute quickly and preserve commercial relationships.

However, ADR may also occur during ongoing court proceedings or arbitration. Arbitral tribunals may also support settlement discussions where appropriate.

Engaging in ADR does not automatically suspend or interrupt limitation periods. Unless otherwise agreed or provided by law, parties must ensure that limitation periods are preserved, for example, by initiating formal proceedings if necessary.

Confidentiality is a central feature of most ADR processes in Finland. Mediation (private, court-annexed, institution-based) is generally conducted on a confidential basis, and the mediator is bound not to disclose information obtained during the process. Statements made during mediation are generally not admissible as evidence in subsequent proceedings without the parties’ consent, and settlement offers may not be used as such evidence.

The allocation of ADR costs depends largely on the type of ADR mechanism. In private mediation the allocation depends on what the parties have agreed on. Typically, the parties share the mediator’s fees and administrative costs equally.

In institution-based mediation, the allocation of costs depends similarly on the parties’ agreement and the applicable rules. For example, the FAI Mediation Rules provide that, unless otherwise agreed, the parties share the costs equally.

In court-annexed mediation, the parties cover the fees incurred from using attorneys, whereas the cost of the mediation process itself is minimal and typically covered by the initiating party (EUR310 at the time of this article).

Finnish courts generally have a supportive attitude towards ADR. In cases where settlement is permitted, the courts have a statutory obligation to encourage the parties to reach an amicable resolution. Where the court considers it appropriate for the purpose of promoting settlement, it may also propose a settlement to the parties, taking into account the wishes of the parties, the nature of the matter, and other relevant circumstances.

This typically takes place during the preparatory phase of litigation, where the court may actively explore the possibility of settlement with the parties.

The availability of court-annexed mediation also reflects a broader policy objective of promoting efficient and consensual dispute resolution.

Legal fees in Finland are generally based on an agreement between the lawyer and the client. Members of the Finnish Bar Association must comply with professional rules governing fees, which require that fees be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the assignment and the amount of work involved.

Fees are commonly calculated on an hourly basis, although alternative fee arrangements may also be agreed. The overall level of fees typically depends on factors such as the complexity of the matter, the value of the dispute and the experience of the lawyer involved.

Third-party funding is permitted in Finland and is not subject to statutory regulation.

Although third-party funding is legally allowed, it remains relatively uncommon in the Finnish market. Commercial disputes are typically funded directly by the parties themselves or through legal expenses insurance. However, interest in third-party funding in Finland has followed the international market and gradually increased, particularly in large international disputes or cases involving significant damages claims.

Where third-party funding is used, the arrangement is generally governed by contract between the funder and the funded party. Finnish procedural law does not specifically regulate disclosure of funding arrangements.

Contingency fee arrangements are permitted in Finland but are subject to professional regulation. Lawyers and clients may agree on success-based fee structures, provided that the arrangement complies with ethical requirements and is not considered unreasonable.

Finnish practice distinguishes between different types of success-based arrangements. A pactum de quota litis allows the lawyer’s fee to be agreed in advance as a proportion of the value obtained for the client, whereas a pactum de palmario involves a base fee for the lawyer, plus an additional bonus if a specified outcome is achieved. Such agreements must be made in writing.

Pure contingency fees, where the lawyer’s remuneration depends entirely on the outcome of the case, remain uncommon in practice.

Insurance coverage for dispute resolution costs is widely available in Finland. Legal expenses insurance is commonly included in household and business insurances and may cover legal costs arising from litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution proceedings.

Such insurance typically covers the insured party’s legal fees up to a specified limit, subject to deductibles and agreed conditions. Coverage often applies only to disputes that arise during the policy period and may exclude certain types of claims.

Legal expenses insurance plays a significant role in enabling individuals and smaller businesses to pursue or defend legal claims.

The general rule is that the losing party must reimburse the reasonable legal costs of the prevailing party. This principle is intended to ensure that a party that successfully enforces its rights is not left bearing the financial burden of the dispute.

However, courts have discretion in determining the final allocation of costs. If both parties succeed in part, the court may order each party to bear its own costs, or allocate costs proportionally.

Furthermore, Finnish courts apply a relatively strict assessment of the reasonableness of legal costs, which often results in prevailing parties bearing a portion of their own costs, particularly in large‑scale commercial disputes.

In arbitration, cost allocation is typically determined by the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal usually follows a similar principle whereby the unsuccessful party bears (most of) the costs, although the final allocation depends on the circumstances of the case and the applicable arbitration rules.

When assessing recoverable costs, Finnish courts consider whether the costs were reasonable and necessary for conducting the proceedings. The court does not automatically reimburse all legal fees claimed by the prevailing party; instead they must be claimed by that party in its request for relief.

Factors typically taken into consideration by the courts when determining costs include:

• the complexity and value of the dispute;
• the amount of work required in the case; and
• the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.

If the court considers the claimed costs excessive, it may reduce the amount awarded to what it deems “reasonable”. This assessment seeks to balance fairness between the parties while discouraging unnecessary or disproportionate litigation expenses.

In addition, the court will assess the relative success of the parties when deciding on the allocation of costs.

Finnish courts may grant interim measures to secure a party’s rights pending final resolution of a dispute. These measures aim to preserve the status quo or prevent harm that could undermine enforcement of a final judgment. Finnish courts have broad discretion in determining the appropriate type of interim relief.

The key measures include asset attachment, prohibitory injunctions (preventing a party from taking certain actions) and mandatory injunctions (requiring a party to take specific steps, such as performing an obligation or restoring a previous state of affairs).

To obtain interim relief, the applicant must demonstrate a plausible claim and a risk that enforcement of the final judgment would otherwise be jeopardised or that significant harm could occur.

Finnish courts may grant interim relief before or during arbitration in aid of arbitration, as well as – at least in theory – in aid of other forms of ADR.

Courts commonly grant such measures where immediate protection is required, and the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted or lacks enforcement powers. Similarly, interim relief may be sought while parties are engaged in mediation or other dispute resolution processes if there is a need to secure assets or preserve rights pending resolution of the dispute.

Where interim relief is granted before the main proceedings have been initiated, the applicant must commence proceedings on the merits within one month from the date of the decision. This may take the form of court proceedings or another process capable of leading to an enforceable decision, such as arbitration. Failure to do so will result in the interim measure being revoked.

Applications for interim relief may be made before the initiation of formal proceedings or during ongoing litigation or arbitration. In urgent situations, courts may grant interim measures on an ex parte basis without hearing the opposing party in advance.

Where an interim measure is granted before the main proceedings have been initiated, the applicant must bring the principal action (the claim on the merits) within one month of the decision granting the measure. If the main proceedings are not initiated within that timeframe, the interim measure will be cancelled and the defendant may be entitled to damages resulting from the measure.

Finnish procedural law does not generally provide for security for costs, meaning that a party cannot typically be required to provide security for the opposing party’s legal costs in the proceedings.

However, this should be distinguished from the requirement to provide security in connection with interim relief. When applying for interim measures, the applicant is typically required to provide security to cover the opposing party’s potential damages if the interim measure later proves to have been unjustified.

Security is also commonly used in arbitration. Arbitral tribunals may, under applicable institutional rules, require a party seeking interim measures to provide appropriate security. For example, under the FAI Arbitration Rules, the tribunal may make the granting of an interim measure conditional upon the requesting party providing security to cover potential costs or damage caused by the measure.

Parties may apply for interim injunctions to prevent conduct that could cause harm or undermine the effectiveness of the final judgment. Interim injunctions may either prohibit specific actions or require certain steps to be taken.

Such measures are typically granted on an inter partes basis, but in urgent cases the court may issue an interim injunction ex parte without hearing the opposing party in advance.

In the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure, interim injunctions do not constitute a separate category of relief but form part of the general regime for interim measures. Accordingly, the same statutory requirements apply. The applicant must demonstrate a plausible claim on the merits and a risk that the applicant’s rights would otherwise be jeopardised or significantly impaired. In addition, the measure must be proportionate in the circumstances.

Finnish jurisdiction does not include a formal summary judgment mechanism comparable to that used in many common law jurisdictions. Disputed commercial claims are usually resolved after full written briefing and an oral hearing on the merits.

However, the courts may resolve a case without a full hearing in a so-called simplified procedure if the claim is clearly unfounded or if the relevant facts are undisputed and the case can be decided as a matter of law. Simplified procedures are somewhat common in straightforward debt collection matters or uncontested claims, where the court may issue a judgment based on written submissions alone. In practice, such situations are however relatively limited, and most commercial disputes proceed to a main hearing where evidence is presented.

Finland has a specific legal framework for class actions, governed by the Finnish Class Actions Act. The mechanism is relatively limited in scope and is primarily designed for consumer protection in matters such as consumer rights, data protection, financial services, transport and electronic communications.

Class actions may be brought only by designated entities, not by individual consumers. The claims must be based on the same or similar factual and legal grounds, and the judgment is binding on all participating members. Proceedings are centralised in the Helsinki District Court.

Conceptually, class actions differ from ordinary joinder of claims. The representative acts on the basis of statutory authority rather than a mandate from the group members, and the group members are not formal parties to the proceedings, even though the judgment has binding effect on them.

The purpose of the mechanism is to enable effective enforcement of consumer rights, particularly in situations where individual claims would otherwise be too small to pursue separately.

Standing to bring a class action is limited to designated entities, such as the Consumer Ombudsman and authorised consumer organisations. Private individuals and businesses cannot bring class actions.

Participation requires consumers to opt in to the group within a set time limit. The court examines whether the statutory requirements are met, including whether the claims are sufficiently similar, the group is adequately defined and the class action is an appropriate procedural mechanism. The system is therefore confined to consumer-related disputes and does not extend to general commercial litigation between businesses.

The primary form of relief in class actions is monetary compensation for the members of the group. Claims must be individually specified, and damages are assessed according to the general principles of Finnish civil law, although the court may rely on standardised methods.

Depending on the nature of the dispute, courts may also grant declaratory relief or orders relating to contractual obligations.

Formal class actions cannot be brought in arbitration in Finland.

Mass claims can, in principle, be brought in arbitration, but this is uncommon in practice. One possible approach is to include multiple claimants in a single arbitration from the outset, provided that all the parties are bound by the same arbitration agreement and the tribunal considers that, under the applicable arbitration rules and the governing arbitration agreement, the case may be heard in one arbitration. In such cases, the arbitration proceeds as a multi-party arbitration, with several claimants acting jointly against one or more respondents.

Arbitration rules may also allow for the joinder of additional parties after proceedings have commenced. However, joinder typically requires that the additional party is bound by the arbitration agreement and, in many cases, the consent of the existing parties or a decision by the tribunal under the applicable rules. 

Class actions remain rare in Finland. In fact, the statutory mechanism has not been used since its introduction in 2007. One reason for this is the restrictive standing regime and the opt-in structure, which limit the practical use of the procedure.

Recent EU-level developments, including the implementation of the Representative Actions Directive (EU) 2020/1828, have expanded the framework for collective redress. While the practical impact is still developing, these changes may gradually increase the use of collective mechanisms in Finland.

Finnish law does not recognise broad disclosure or discovery. Instead, document production is governed by the provisions on documentary evidence in the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure, under which a party may be ordered to produce specifically identified documents that are relevant to the case.

Finnish law recognises certain protections that allow a party or witness to withhold evidence.

One of the most important, concerns attorney-client confidentiality, which prevents lawyers from disclosing or testifying about information obtained in the course of providing legal advice.

In addition, Finnish law provides for other rights to refuse to give evidence, including:

• self-incrimination protection, under which a party or witness cannot be compelled to produce evidence that would expose them to criminal liability; and
• the statutory right to refuse to testify in defined situations, such as those involving close relatives and protections for professionals subject to confidentiality obligations (eg, doctors and psychologists).

These protections reflect a balance between the need to obtain relevant evidence and the protection of personal relationships, professional secrecy and fundamental rights. Their scope is defined by law and may be subject to limitations where disclosure is necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Protection may be waived if the protected party voluntarily discloses the information, relies on it in the proceedings or expressly consents to its disclosure.

Finnish law recognises the protection of confidential information in court proceedings. Unlike privilege, confidentiality does not necessarily prevent disclosure but may justify restrictions on how information is used or disclosed in the proceedings.

Confidentiality obligations may arise from statutory provisions, contractual arrangements or professional duties. In practice, courts balance the protection of confidential information against the principles of publicity and the need to ensure a fair hearing.

The courts may restrict access to documents containing business secrets, sensitive commercial information or personal data. Where such information is relevant to the case, the court may still order its disclosure but adopt protective measures, such as limiting access to certain materials or ordering that parts of the proceedings remain confidential, for example, through redactions.

Witness evidence plays an important role in Finnish civil proceedings. Witnesses are typically heard during the oral main hearing and give testimony under oath or affirmation.

There is no system of pre-trial depositions comparable to those used in some other jurisdictions. Instead, witness testimony is generally presented directly before the court.

Witnesses may be examined by the parties and their legal representatives, including through questioning by the opposing party. The judge also has an active role in clarifying testimony and may ask questions to ensure that the facts are properly established.

Expert evidence is permitted and frequently used in complex commercial disputes. Experts may provide opinions on technical, financial or industry-specific matters requiring specialised knowledge.

Experts are usually appointed by the parties, although the court may also appoint an independent expert if necessary. Party-appointed experts typically submit written reports and may be examined at the main hearing.

Regardless of how they are appointed, experts are expected to present objective opinions based on their professional expertise. Their role is to assist the court in understanding technical issues rather than to advocate for the appointing party.

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Finland depend primarily on applicable EU legislation, international treaties and, in their absence, national law.

Judgments from EU member states are generally recognised and enforced under EU regulations, most notably the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which is based on the principle of mutual recognition. Under this framework, judgments are recognised automatically without separate proceedings, and enforcement typically requires submitting the judgment together with the prescribed certificate to the Finnish enforcement authorities.

Judgments from non-EU jurisdictions may be recognised and enforced on the basis of applicable international conventions or, in their absence, Finnish domestic law. In such cases, enforcement generally requires a court procedure in which the Finnish court assesses whether the judgment meets the relevant conditions, including procedural fairness and compatibility with Finnish public policy.

Even where a foreign judgment is not formally recognised or enforceable, it may still have evidentiary value in Finnish proceedings, depending on the circumstances.

Domestic arbitral awards are enforceable in Finland through enforcement proceedings based on a court order granting enforcement. Once such an order has been obtained, the award may be enforced in the same manner as a final court judgment. In practice, however, arbitral awards are most often complied with voluntarily.

The grounds for refusing enforcement of a domestic arbitral award are narrow. Enforcement may be denied only if the award is null and void, has been set aside by a court, or if enforcement has been prohibited in connection with annulment proceedings. The courts do not review the merits of the award when considering enforcement.

Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Finland primarily under the New York Convention, as implemented in the Finnish Arbitration Act. A party seeking enforcement must submit the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, after which the Finnish court assesses whether any grounds for refusal exist.

Finnish courts adopt a pro-enforcement approach, and refusal of enforcement is exceptional. The burden of proof lies on the party opposing enforcement, and the grounds for refusal are interpreted restrictively. In practice, enforcement is usually unsuccessful only where practical obstacles, such as the debtor’s insolvency, prevent recovery.

Enforcement proceedings in Finland are generally efficient, but the overall duration depends on whether the enforcement is contested and on the nature of the assets involved.

Where enforcement is straightforward and uncontested, enforcement measures may begin relatively quickly after the enforcement application is filed with the Finnish enforcement authorities, often within a few weeks. The enforcement process is carried out by the National Enforcement Authority, which is responsible for implementing measures such as asset attachment and sale. The subsequent timeline depends largely on the availability and type of assets available for enforcement.

If court involvement is required (eg, to obtain an enforcement order for an arbitral award or where enforcement is challenged), the process may take several months. Appeals or parallel annulment proceedings may further extend the timeline.

In practice, delays are more commonly related to practical issues, such as locating assets or the debtor’s insolvency, rather than procedural inefficiencies.

A party seeking to resist enforcement in Finland must typically raise specific objections before the competent court or enforcement authority. The available grounds are limited and must generally be invoked by the resisting party, although certain issues may also be considered ex officio.

EU Judgments

In the case of EU judgments, the resisting party may apply for refusal of recognition or enforcement under the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The available grounds include public policy, lack of proper service in default proceedings and irreconcilability with another judgment.

Non-EU Judgments

For non-EU judgments, recognition and enforcement are not governed by a single comprehensive statutory regime but instead depend on applicable international treaties or specific statutory provisions. The Finnish Act on International Legal Assistance and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters contains procedural provisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, but the Act does not establish independent substantive grounds for recognition. In the absence of an international treaty or statutory provision, foreign judgments are not directly enforceable in Finland, although they may have evidentiary value. In practice, Finnish courts may consider factors such as whether the foreign court had an acceptable jurisdictional basis, whether the proceedings complied with due process requirements (including proper service and the right to be heard), whether the judgment is final, whether it conflicts with existing judgments and whether recognition would be contrary to Finnish public policy.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

To resist enforcement of a domestic arbitral award, the opposing party may invoke the limited grounds set out in the Finnish Arbitration Act, such as nullity or a prior decision setting aside the award. In relation to foreign arbitral awards, the resisting party must establish one of the refusal grounds set out in the Finnish Arbitration Act, which implements and reflects the New York Convention, such as the invalidity of the arbitration agreement or serious procedural irregularities.

In practice, resistance most commonly takes the form of opposing enforcement or seeking a stay of enforcement. In the case of arbitral awards, parties may also initiate setting-aside proceedings before the court in parallel with the enforcement proceedings. However, such challenges are only rarely successful.

The use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution is not specifically regulated under Finnish procedural law. However, the broader regulatory framework governing digital technologies, data protection and professional responsibility applies to the use of AI tools in legal practice.

In practice, the use of AI in dispute resolution currently falls within general professional and ethical obligations applicable to lawyers and legal service providers.

Artificial intelligence is gradually influencing dispute resolution in Finland, primarily through tools that assist with legal research, document review and the analysis of large volumes of material. Law firms increasingly use AI-based technologies to identify relevant information more efficiently and support case preparation.

The Finnish courts have adopted digital tools relatively late, but they now embrace broader digitalisation, including electronic filing systems and even remote witness hearings in limited circumstances. AI is, however, not currently used in the courts themselves. Although the topic has attracted growing attention, implementation has been slow.

One of the reasons is the Finnish state’s strict information security framework, which has made the adoption of AI tools in judicial processes particularly cautious. In addition, practical constraints such as competing priorities have slowed broader implementation.

Looking ahead, AI is nevertheless likely to become increasingly important in dispute resolution in general, particularly in areas such as document management. However, the core judicial function of evaluating evidence and applying the law is expected to remain with human judges and arbitrators.