Introduction to Enforcement Under Finnish Law

The relevant provisions relating to enforcement proceedings are contained in the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure (4/1734, oikeudenkäymiskaari) and the Finnish Enforcement Code (705/2007, ulosottokaari). In addition, as Finland is a member state of the EU, the relevant regulations (such as Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters) apply.

Publicly available information

In Finland, there are several public registers that may provide useful information to identify the assets of another party. The most important of these are the following.

• The Land Register (Kiinteistörekisteri) is kept by the National Land Survey of Finland (Maanmittauslaitos) and certain municipalities. It includes information such as the specifications of real properties including property identifier numbers and area, ownership and co-ownership of real properties, encumbrances as well as land use planning and development plans. Information contained in the Land Register is publicly available, but it can only be obtained in Finnish and Swedish. Anyone can search and obtain documents related to a certain real property from the database. A fee applies to document searches.
• The Trade Register (Kaupparekisteri) is kept by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus). Registered details of companies and businesses can be searched in the Virre Information Service subject to a fee. It is also possible to obtain translated extracts of Trade Register information and registration certificates in English from the Virre Information Service. Company financial statements are available only in Finnish.
• Basic details of companies can also be searched by using the company business ID in the company search The Business Information System (Yritys- ja yhteisötietojärjestelmä). The company search is provided by the Patent and Registration Office and the Finnish Tax Administration (Verohallinto) free of charge. In addition, a number of private service providers offer company and real property searches subject to a fee, such as AlmaTalent Oy’s Tietopalvelut, only available in Finnish.
• Information concerning company beneficial owners is maintained in the Trade Register. However, the beneficial owner information is not public in the same way as other information in the Trade Register, but instead can only be accessed for purposes of detecting and preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
• The Insolvency Register (Maksukyvyttömyysrekisteri) is a free open information network database kept by the Legal Register Centre (Oikeusrekisterikeskus). The Insolvency Register contains information on bankruptcies, insolvency or debt restructurings for debts incurred in the course of business, and the search can be conducted on the basis of a business ID number or a private person’s name. However, information on the restructuring of private debts is to be requested from the Legal Register Centre, who will provide the information free of charge. The service is only available in Finnish and Swedish. It is also important to note that natural persons’ credit information may not be searched without a valid ground as specified in Chapter 4, Section 19 of the Credit Information Act (527/2007, luottotietolaki). For example, credit information may be disclosed for purposes such as recovery proceedings. Natural persons also have the right to be informed to whom the information concerning them has been disclosed in the past year. Natural persons may also rely on a service that notifies them if their credit information has been subject to a search.
• The Enterprise Mortgage Register (Yrityskiinnitysrekisteri) is kept by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus). The register can be searched online through the Virre Information Service subject to a fee. It can be used to obtain information about business mortgages, such as information on the aggregate amount of business mortgages registered against a company’s movable property, the holder of the promissory note and any execution or confiscation proceedings concerning the mortgaged property. It should be noted, however, that there is no obligation to update the information in the register, so the information in the register is not necessarily up to date.
• The Patent Register (Patenttirekisteri) and the Trademark Register (Tavaramerkkirekisteri) are kept by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus). These registers can be used to obtain information on registered IPs such as national and European patents and national trade marks as well as trade marks registered through the Madrid system. The information on these registers can be accessed through PatInfo, FI-EP and the Trademark Information Service. Some of the information is subject to a fee.
• The Residential and Commercial Property Information System (Huoneistotietojärjestelmä) is a digital register containing information on ownership, pledges and restrictions of housing companies. The System was deployed in 2019, and gradually information on all housing companies and apartments will be saved in the System, thus replacing paper share certificates. The System is regulated by legislation, and the National Land Survey of Finland (Maanmittauslaitos) is responsible for its implementation and administration.
• Finnish law provides for a significant amount of tax information to be made public on transparency and public interest grounds. Information is released annually. This includes information on individual and corporate taxpayers’ income taxes as well as real estate taxes. For example, regarding individual taxpayers the amounts of earned and taxable income, capital gains tax and the total amount of taxes paid are publicly available. While public, this information is not available online in its entirety. Subject to certain exceptions, part of the information is publicly searchable by commercial service providers (such as Helsingin Sanomat, a large Finnish newspaper) and may be subject to a fee. Otherwise, it can be requested from the Tax Administration (Verohallinto) by telephone or reviewed at tax offices.
• The Finnish Transportation and Communications Agency Traficom (Liikenne- ja viestintävirasto Traficom) maintains an electronic Transport Register (Liikenneasioiden rekisteri), which contains information on vehicles, aircraft, vessels and watercraft, railway rolling stock and related equipment, operator’s licences, operations subject to notification and transport-related personal licences. For example, as all Finnish ships used for merchant shipping must be registered, Traficom maintains a register for ships for the whole of Finland, whereas the state department of Åland is responsible for ships registered in Åland. With regards to aircraft, if any aircraft has been entered in the Transport Register, it is possible to obtain public aircraft data by typing in a registration marking.

Further means to identify assets

The credit score and information database company Suomen Asiakastieto Oy maintains a register of the financial information of natural and legal persons and their credit scores. Its database can be searched against a fee concerning, for example, information on the managers and representatives of companies. The service available in English is limited. There are also other foreign information database service providers such as Bisnode – Dun & Bradstreet operating in Finland through Bisnode Finland Oy and Orbis – and Bureau van Dijk Orbis, operating in Finland through Orbis Oy, that maintain information concerning Finnish assets. However, compared to the above registers, the information available in said foreign registers can be relatively limited.

Asset disclosure order

Asset disclosure orders as such do not exist under Finnish law. However, in connection with debt recovery proceedings, a debtor may be obliged by the competent enforcement officer of the National Enforcement Authority (Ulosottolaitos) to provide certain information about its property or other assets, income, debts, shareholdings, as well as information on any changes to its asset position and any contracts or commitments affecting its asset position. If the debtor refuses to provide this information, the enforcement officer may compel them to do so under threat of a fine. Third parties and authorities may also be obliged to provide information concerning the assets subject to recovery proceedings and the asset position of the debtor upon request by the enforcement officer.

Freezing orders

Chapter 7 of the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure provides for several precautionary measures in civil matters. A competent court may order a seizure of assets, ie, the attachment of the opposing party’s property to an amount securing a debt they owe to the applicant. In that case, the applicant must prove that there are grounds for the enforcement for the debt and there is a danger that the opposing party hides or destroys the property or otherwise endangers the payment of the debt (Chapter 7, Section 1, takavarikko/saamisturvaaminen). Property of the opposing party can also be attached to secure the applicant’s prior right to the property in question or where there are grounds for enforcement of some other right which the applicant has over the property (Chapter 7, Section 2, takavarikko/paremman oikeuden turvaaminen). Pursuant to Chapter 7, Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the competent court can also grant a “general precautionary measure” (yleinen turvaamistoimi) including measures such as prohibiting the opposing party’s deed or action, ordering the opposing party to take a specific measure/action or ordering other necessary measures for securing the right of the applicant.

One of the prerequisites for obtaining a precautionary measure in civil matters is that the applicant’s right can be confirmed in an enforceable judgment. In a recent judgment by the Helsinki Court of Appeals, the court declined a request for a freezing order because the “enforceable judgment” criterion was not met when the main claim was to be heard before English courts. The judgment is not, as such, a binding precedent for other courts but it would, nevertheless, suggest that freezing orders may not be available in Finland if the main claim is to be heard in a jurisdiction outside the EU (or where there is a clear treaty provision providing for enforceability of the foreign judgment).

A confiscation measure is available also in criminal matters. In cases where there are grounds to suspect a person of committing an offence, or where the person may be ordered to pay compensation or restitution on the basis of a criminal offence, or where they can be ordered to forfeit an amount to the State, their property can be confiscated for security of the amount payable under Chapter 6 of the Coercive Measures Act (806/2011, pakkokeinolaki). The confiscation is available if there is a danger that the person will seek to evade payment by hiding or destroying the property, or to flee.

In Finland, the decision of a court in the main issue in civil cases is a judgment (tuomio). A court judgment will finally decide on the subject matter of a dispute in its entirety.

Another decision of the court is a court order (päätös). The order contains the court’s ruling on the procedural issue raised in the case. Court orders are either “final decisions”, which conclude the proceedings, or decisions which do not conclude the proceedings but concern the course of the proceedings.

In addition, under various different circumstances, the court may decide on a matter in separate steps, eg based on the passivity of the other party or due to a settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the court may render the following decisions:

• a judgment by default (yksipuolinen tuomio);
• an interim order (väliaikaismääräys);
• a settlement certified by a court (sovinnon vahvistaminen);
• a partial judgment (osatuomio); and
• an intermediate judgment (välituomio).

Judgments can also be distinguished and have different effects based on the nature of the relief requested and respectively granted. In civil proceedings, judgments have been divided into performance, declaratory and formulative judgments.

• A performance judgment (suoritustuomio) imposes an obligation on the defendant to perform something. Usually, a performance judgment obliges the respondent to make a positive performance, such as payment in money, delivery of movable property or removal from an apartment or property. A performance order may also oblige the respondent to take a negative action, for example, to refrain from doing something or to allow something to be done.
• A declaratory judgment (vahvistustuomio) confirms the existence (positive declaratory judgment) or non-existence (negative declaratory judgment) of a legal relationship between the claimant and the respondent. In order to be effective, a declaratory judgment does not need any enforcement. Thus, a declaratory judgment can be relied upon but cannot be enforced.
• A formative judgment (muotoamistuomio) affects the rights of the parties and changes a certain legal relationship or legal situation directly. Accordingly, a formative judgment does not require enforcement. Formative judgments include, for example, a judgment regarding divorce.

The enforcement of domestic judgments in Finland is part of the civil procedure in a broad sense: the examination of the validity of the claimant’s claim takes place in court proceedings, and the enforcement of the court’s judgment in enforcement proceedings. Finnish enforcement authorities are independent law enforcement authorities that exercise considerable public power.

In Finland, enforcement proceedings fall within the competence of a special state organisation, the National Enforcement Authority (Ulosottolaitos). The National Enforcement Authority is an agency under the Ministry of Justice, which performs the tasks laid down by law independently and autonomously. Since 1 December 2020, the National Enforcement Authority has been a single national agency. Enforcement measures within the National Enforcement Authority may fall within the competencies of several different enforcement officials in the competent enforcement unit. For the sake of simplicity, this publication only refers to enforcement officers in general.

In general, judgments and court orders are enforceable only if and to the extent they impose an obligation on the respondent. Enforceable civil law obligations are not restricted to payment obligations only but other types of obligations, such as obligations to transfer title or ownership to property, are also enforceable. Declaratory judgments and court orders are, as a rule, not enforceable.

Enforcement of a judgment is applied for by means of official standard forms and must contain the following mandatory information (as provided for in more detail in Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Enforcement Code):

• the applicant’s name, personal identity code or business ID, address, telephone number and bank account number;
• the counsel’s name and contact details if counsel has been appointed and, if funds are to be remitted to the counsel or the counsel has the right to take over assets on behalf of the client, their personal identity code or business ID;
• the respondent’s name and address, as well as their personal identity code or business ID if known to the creditor;
• the details of the grounds for enforcement (name of the court, date and record number of the order);
• the applicant’s claims (amount to be collected, starting date for the accrual of interest, etc);
• if liability for the debt is shared between several individuals, the debtors from whom the debt should be collected; and
• whether the applicant requests limited enforcement (ie, where measures are limited to the garnishment of pay, pensions and other assets that do not have to be liquidated) or entering the matter in the passive register (ie, allowing the enforcement to remain passive but still pending and activated later if the debtor is within the course of two years from the date of the impediment certificate found to possess garnishable or distrainable assets (eg, a tax refund)).

A copy of the judgment, court order or other enforceable instrument must be attached to the enforcement application. However, the judgment need not be enclosed with the application if it can be found in the Electronic Register of Court Decisions (judicial administration’s electronic service).

Taxes and other governmental charges or fees are directly enforceable pursuant to the Act on the Enforcement of Taxes and Public Payments (706/2007), which means they can be collected by way of enforcement without a judgment or other grounds for enforcement. Based on the same Act, other receivables under public law or comparable receivables can be enforced in the absence of a judgment or court order if there is a specific statutory provision to this effect.

Enforcement Measures

In certain cases, the possibility to initiate enforcement is dependent on the validity of the judgment concerned. Judgments pending validity can only be enforced subject to certain conditions being fulfilled.

Very briefly and by way of overview, according to the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure (among others Chapter 24, Sections 1–2, 5 and 11–12), a court judgment becomes valid and final:

• immediately once the court decision has been delivered if the parties have agreed not to appeal against the judgment;
• if the parties have declared that they will not exercise their right of appeal;
• in seven days from the day when the district court decision was delivered if the parties have not filed a notice of intent to appeal the judgment (tyytymättömyyden ilmoitus);
• in 30 days from the day when the district court judgment was delivered if the parties have not submitted their appeal to the competent court of appeal (the exercise of which right is subject to the appealing party having notified their intent to appeal to the court that delivered the judgment);
• if the competent court of appeal has not granted the appellants continued leave for appeal (as explained in more detail in Chapters 25 and 25a of the Code of Judicial Procedure); or
• if the Supreme Court decides not to grant a right of appeal for a preliminary ruling (as explained in more detail in Chapter 30 of the Code of Judicial Procedure).

A judgment that has become legally valid and binding is enforceable by execution without a requirement of collateral. Before the judgment has gained legal force, the execution requires posting collateral.

A judgment that has not become final and binding, and concerns a payment order, an eviction judgment or a judgment on the disposition of movable property can be enforced provided that the debtor does not provide collateral for the value of the claim and enforcement costs, among other things. In the case of other obligations, the judgment may be enforced unless the enforcement renders the appeal ineffective and, in addition, if the applicant provides security, inter alia, for the obligation to pay compensation for the possible damage caused by the enforcement if the appeal is successful and the judgement is, consequently, overturned.

Enforcement of Monetary Claims

Enforcing a payment liability specified as a sum of money is executed by attaching an amount of assets belonging to the debtor that is sufficient to pay the applicant’s receivable (as provided for in more detail in Chapter 4, Section 1 of the Enforcement Code). The attached assets are liquidated and remitted to the creditor.

However, before enforcement is initiated, the debtor is given a payment reminder and a deadline by which the debt must be paid, and in the absence of repayment of the debt the enforcement proceedings are proceeded with.

Once the enforcement proceedings are under way, payment liabilities pending legal validity may be enforced unless the debtor deposits a security for the creditor’s claim, the enforcement fee and possible enforcement costs. However, in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 5 of the Enforcement Code, it is not possible to sell the debtor’s assets on the basis of a judgment pending legal validity unless the property is rapidly depreciating in value or the costs of maintaining the property are high and the applicant provides security for any damage and enforcement costs caused by the sale. If the applicant fails to provide security, the attachment may be cancelled. The funds raised by the attachment may only be paid against security. Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 43 of the Enforcement Code, the security can be either a pledge or a guarantee.

The garnishment of wages, pensions or other recurring income is subject to the provisions which favour the debtor and limit the amount of garnishment. Thus, for example, a natural person debtor with a low income is allowed to retain a so-called “protective share” (ulosoton suojaosuus).

Enforcement of Obligations Other Than a Payment Liability

In addition to enforcement of payment obligations, the following specific types of obligations can be enforced:

• eviction (häätö);
• obligation to relinquish property (irtaimen omaisuuden luovutusvelvoite);
• obligation to take measures (tekemisvelvoite); and
• obligation to desist (kieltovelvoite).

If the judgment or court order containing any of the above obligations is pending validity, its enforcement will require the applicant depositing a security for the applicant’s potential liability for damages resulting from the annulment or amendment of the judgment, for enforcement costs and for the costs arising out of the cancellation of the enforcement.

Enforcement of Freezing Orders

In the Finnish legal system, jurisdiction over precautionary measures is also divided between the courts and the National Enforcement Authority in the same way as for judgments: the court decides on the precautionary measure and the National Enforcement Authority enforces the decision.

The procedural rules for the enforcement of a precautionary measure differ depending on the type of measure. However, due to its preliminary nature, the enforcement of any type of precautionary measure, as a rule, requires the applicant to deposit a security for any damage that the debtor may suffer as a result of the enforcement of the precautionary measure, if it is later found to be without merits.

The amount and quality of the security will be decided by the enforcement officer in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 43–45 and Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Enforcement Code.

In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that legal proceedings concerning the main claim for the protection for which the precautionary measure was ordered have been initiated within one month from when the court ordered the precautionary measure. If legal proceedings regarding the main claim are not initiated within the time limit, the enforcement officer will reverse the enforcement of the precautionary measure at the request of the respondent and the applicant will be liable for all loss and damage caused by the precautionary measure.

In general, costs for the enforcement of domestic judgments are low in Finland, and the enforcement proceedings are conducted in a time-efficient manner. However, the length of enforcement proceedings will, of course, be dependent on the workload of the competent enforcement unit of the National Enforcement Authority (the Enforcement Authority’s enforcement duties are carried out by enforcement units, the successors of the former local enforcement offices) and the extent and nature of objections made by the defendant during the course of the proceedings.

With regard to costs, the costs of enforcement can be divided into the following categories:

• specific enforcement costs;
• enforcement fees; and
• legal costs in enforcement proceedings and enforcement disputes.

Specific costs mean the costs incurred by the enforcement measures in a particular enforcement case other than the general costs of the competent enforcement unit of the Enforcement Authority. Specific costs include, for example, various transport, storage, sales notes, expert fees and other similar costs paid to third parties for services rendered by them in an enforcement case.

Enforcement fees are governed by the Enforcement Fee Act (34/1995, laki ulosottomaksuista) and Regulation on Enforcement Fees (35/1995, asetus ulosottomaksuista). Enforcement fees cover a range of different fees, such as:

• nominal processing fees;
• fees applicable to the enforcement of payment obligations (the amount increases in relation to the amount of the payment obligation being enforced and the maximum fee is a couple of hundred euros);
• disbursement fees, which are 1.45% of the disbursed amount, but no more than EUR5,000 per disbursement;
• sales fees in the range of EUR450–1,100;
• fees for the realisation of certain types of property in the maximum amount of a couple of hundred euros; and
• fees for the enforcement of non-payment obligations.

Under Finnish law, the enforcement officer has a duty to search for assets belonging to the debtor in order to obtain payment for the applicant. The publicly available means to identify defendants’ assets are described in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position. In addition, the debtor has an obligation to provide information at the request of the enforcement officer. In practice, the enforcement officer has relatively extensive possibilities to search for assets belonging to the debtor. For example, the enforcement officer may send requests to banks, among others, to obtain account information.

Challenges against enforcement proceedings post-judgment are described in more detail in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

All enforcement measures taken by the enforcement officer can be subjected to an appeal (ulosottovalitus) to be made to the competent district court. The right of appeal normally concerns the debtor, but may also apply to, for example, creditors, third parties or enforcement auction customers. While the appeal is to be addressed to the district court, the appeal will be delivered to the National Enforcement Authority, and the enforcement officer will then deliver the appeal to the district court that has jurisdiction over the debtor’s domicile or habitual residence. Among other things, an appeal may be lodged against the enforcement officer having carried out a specific search in a particular place or having obliged someone to provide information. In practice, however, the person concerned has no prior possibility to prevent the search or to refuse to comply with the obligation to provide information without risking sanctions.

As stated above, the starting point is that all enforcements measures can be subject to appeal. The Enforcement Code does, however, provide for certain prohibitions on appeals. For example, interim enforcement measures are not subject to appeal pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 19 of the Enforcement Code. The enforcement officer must state whether the measure or decision is subject to appeal and provide instructions for appeal.

The right to appeal belongs to the person whose right the measure or decision by the enforcement officer affects. After the final remittance of accounts, an appeal is allowed only for an error in the remittance. For the sake of clarity, an appeal against an enforcement ground does not fall within the scope of an enforcement appeal but the grounds of enforcement will be subjected to appeal as described in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

With regard to the length of the enforcement proceedings, it is good to note that an appeal may delay enforcement even significantly. Pursuant to Chapter 10, Sections 20–25 of the Enforcement Code, the court hearing the enforcement appeal may on its own motion or by a party’s request give a partial or full stay of the enforcement proceedings.

Moreover, enforcement may also be contested in separate civil proceedings in a competent district court if, for example, the debtor claims that the liability to be enforced has already been paid or its enforcement should be barred because of an applicable statute of limitations. Such proceedings concerning contested enforcement pursuant to Chapter 10, Section 6 of the Enforcement Code (täytäntöönpanoriita) may also require the hearing of extensive oral evidence and thereby necessitate a full-scale hearing. Other grounds for initiating contested enforcement proceedings include, among others, a third party opposing an enforcement because it would violate the third party’s rights, or contesting other liabilities ordered in the foreign judgment.

Enforcement under Finnish law requires that the obligation imposed on the debtor can be enforced against the debtor, ie, only performance judgments are enforceable. Declaratory judgments can be relied upon but not enforced. In addition, formative judgments are unenforceable.

For the time being, no central register of judgments has been implemented or is publicly available in Finland. However, there are websites where a selection of judgments of the Finnish courts have been published (eg, www.finlex.fi, www.tuomioistuinlaitos.fi and www.edilex.fi – the last subject to a fee). In addition, judgments may be requested directly from the courts.

As a rule, civil judgments issued in a foreign country are not directly recognised or enforced in Finland. Foreign judgments will only be enforced in Finland if this is specifically provided for in law, including international treaties or EU law (Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Enforcement Code). By and large, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign civil judgment in Finland can either be based on an international treaty that has been implemented into Finnish legislation, certain provisions included in national legislation (which are not, however, relevant in the context of foreign commercial judgments) or certain supranational legislation, as briefly described below.

Enforcement of European Judgments

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Brussels I recast”) governs the enforcement of judgments given in the EU member states. Under the Brussels I recast, judgments rendered in another EU member state are directly enforceable in Finland without a separate declaration of enforceability.

In order to enforce a judgment from another EU member state, the creditor must submit, in addition to an application for its enforcement, a copy of the judgment and a certificate to the National Enforcement Authority as described in Articles 42 and 53 of the Brussels I recast.

Enforcement of Judgments Under the Lugano Convention

In parallel, the Lugano Convention also provides rules regarding jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In practice, judgments given in Iceland, Norway and Switzerland will be enforced under the Lugano Convention. In this case, the enforcement of such judgment requires that a district court, upon application, first declares the judgment enforceable.

Enforcement of Judgments Under the Hague Convention

Finland is a member to the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreements (2005). However, the Hague Convention has a more limited scope than the European regime instruments. The United Kingdom has ratified the Hague Convention. The other contracting states are the EU, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. As long as the Brussels I recast applies in the EU member states, the Hague Convention is largely inapplicable as the Brussels I recast takes priority over it.

Judgments issued by the courts of the contracting states may be recognised and enforced in Finland based on the Hague Convention, provided that the prerequisites set out in the convention are met. The Hague Convention applies only to cases in civil or commercial matters where an exclusive choice of court agreement was concluded between the parties. Further, the matter must have an international connection beyond the choice of a foreign court to fall within the scope of the Hague Convention, such as when the parties are resident in different contracting states. Furthermore, recognition or enforcement may be refused on the basis of the grounds laid down in Article 9 of the Hague Convention.

If a judgment given in the United Kingdom is enforceable on the basis of the Hague Convention, an enforcement application in respect of the United Kingdom judgment shall be submitted to a competent district court. The Hague Convention applies to matters where an exclusive choice of court agreement was concluded between the parties after 1 January 2021. Given the lack of case law, there is uncertainty whether the Hague Convention applies also to the choice of court agreements that entered into force between 1 October 2015 and 1 January 2021.

If the matter does not fall within the scope of the Hague Convention, a judgment rendered in the United Kingdom, in principle, cannot be enforced nor recognised in Finland without re-examination. However, if the party in whose favour the final judgment has been rendered brings a new action in a competent court in Finland, the final judgment rendered by an English court may be submitted to the Finnish court, but would only be regarded by the Finnish court as evidence of the outcome of the dispute to which such judgment relates and the Finnish court would still have full discretion to rehear the dispute ab initio.

Finland is also a party to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which entered into force on 1 September 2023. Contracting parties outside the EU member states still being limited in number, accordingly, it remains to be seen what impact the convention will have going forward.

Multilateral Treaties

The Nordic Convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning claims under private law (Treaty Series 56/1977) is still in force between the Nordic countries (Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark). This treaty covers only judgments relating to claims under private law, such as claims for damages. However, the Brussels I recast and the Lugano Convention take priority over legislation based on the Nordic Convention.

Finland is also party to several bilateral treaties on enforcement of civil judgments.

The Act on international legal assistance and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (426/2015, the “Legal Assistance Act”, laki kansainvälisestä oikeusavusta sekä tuomioiden tunnustamisesta ja täytäntöönpanosta siviili- ja kauppaoikeuden alalla) governs recognition of foreign civil judgments under Finnish law. The Legal Assistance Act is secondary to EU law and treaties on the subject. Under the Legal Assistance Act, the district courts in Finland may declare foreign judgments enforceable on application.

In addition to the enforcement of foreign judgments described under 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, there are certain specific enforcement procedures laid out in the following European Regulations:

• EU Regulation 805/2004 creating the European enforcement order (EEO) for automatic cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments on uncontested claims;
• EU Regulation 1896/2006 creating the European order for payment procedure for claims not contested by the defendant;
• EU Regulation 861/2007 establishing the European small claims procedure for cases where the maximum level of the claims is EUR5,000 (Regulation (EU) No 2015/2421); and
• EU Regulation 655/2014 establishing the European Account Preservation Order procedure, enabling creditors to block funds held by the debtor in a bank account in another EU country.

In addition, there is a special enforcement procedure for certain foreign decisions on legal costs, but this procedure has narrow applicability. Moreover, the Legal Assistance Act contains specific provisions on the enforcement of decisions concerning legal costs given in states which are contracting parties to the Hague Convention of 1 March 1954 on civil procedure or the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Access to Justice. The provisions also have quite a narrow applicability and are applied only if the decision in question is a foreign decision ordering the claimant or an intervening party to pay legal costs and if Finland is obliged to enforce such decisions based on an international convention or mutual assistance agreement. The enforceability of such decisions on legal costs will be confirmed by a district court on application. The district court must declare a decision enforceable if the application meets formal requirements and the decision will generally be enforced in the same way as domestic judgments.

The enforceability of the foreign judgment in its country of origin is the basic prerequisite for its enforcement in Finland. However, since Finnish courts are not entitled to review the merits of the judgment in connection with the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the grounds prohibiting enforcement of foreign judgments are included in the applicable legal instruments. These include, among others, Article 45 of the Brussels I recast as well as Articles 34–35 of the Lugano Convention and Article 9 of the Hague Convention.

Very briefly, such grounds include the recognition and enforcement of judgments which would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of Finland (ordre public) whereby, for example, judgments awarding punitive and exemplary damages would be refused. Moreover, this would also entail refusal of such judgments where the defendant was not served or notified of the documents which instituted the proceedings in sufficient time and/or given an opportunity to respond.

If a foreign judgment is not recognised and enforced in Finland, the only legal recourse to a party seeking enforcement is to initiate legal proceedings anew in Finland to obtain an enforcement ground recognised in the Enforcement Code and thereby enforceable in Finland.

In principle, the main difference between the enforcement of domestic and foreign judgments is, in some cases, the need to first obtain a declaration of recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment. Once this condition is met, the same provisions apply to the enforcement proceedings of foreign and domestic judgments.

As stated in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments, the process of enforcing foreign judgments commences when the applicant applies for enforcement and, if necessary, encloses a copy of the enforceable judgment or court order. Applications for enforcement to the National Enforcement Authority can be filed electronically and via a traditional written application.

Judgments from EU states accompanying a certificate issued in the country of origin can be enforced in Finland like a Finnish judgment. However, the Brussels I recast makes it an additional condition for the commencement of enforcement that the debtor is served with a certificate from the court of origin in accordance with Article 53 of Brussels I recast. If the debtor has not previously been served with the judgment to be enforced, the judgment will be attached to the certificate of origin to be served. Enforcement measures can be initiated only after a reasonable time has passed from the service of the documents to the debtor.

As described in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, judgments from the member states of the Lugano Convention must first be declared enforceable in Finland by a court order. Accordingly, and pursuant to the Legal Assistance Act, an application to declare a judgment issued in a foreign state enforceable must be submitted to a district court. This order is then enforced like any other order of a Finnish court.

If a judgment issued in a foreign state has, on application, been declared enforceable in Finland without hearing the opposing party and without notifying the opposing party of the decision in accordance with Chapter 8, Section 11 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the opposing party will be served with the decision. The district court is responsible for the service of the decision in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Code of Judicial Procedure on the service of a summons.

In Finland, the timeline for the enforcement of foreign judgments is comparable to that of domestic judgments, except for the possible time needed for the recognition of the judgment. Thus, as a rule, an enforcement proceeding will be carried out without undue delay as provided in Chapter 3, Section 21 of the Enforcement Code. However, enforcement may be postponed if this is to be deemed in the best interests of the respondent and if the postponement does not cause more than insignificant inconvenience to the applicant. If a time limit has been provided for a proceeding, said time limit will be observed.

In respect of costs, an application for the declaration of recognition and enforceability does not trigger court fees pursuant to Section 8, subsection 2 of the Act on Court Fees (1455/2015, tuomioistuinmaksulaki). Otherwise, costs involved in the enforcement proceedings are roughly the same as for domestic judgments, save for any required translation costs, which will initially be borne by the applicant. However, there is no enforcement fee to be paid in advance.

As a general rule, the defendant is liable to pay the necessary costs caused by the enforcement of the payment obligation or other obligation, for the transport, storage or sale of property or the other enforcement measures taken by the enforcement officer. Secondarily they are the liability of the applicant. Separate provisions apply to fees that are to be paid to the Finnish state as compensation for the costs of enforcement.

As stated in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, under the Brussels I recast, judgments given in other EU member states are directly enforceable in Finland and judgments from other countries may be enforced, provided that this has been agreed upon in an international treaty or legislation binding on Finland. However, the defendant may oppose enforcement if one of the grounds for refusal provided for in the Brussels I recast, or another applicable international treaty or legislation, is met.

In Finland, no limitation period is specifically applicable to the enforcement of foreign judgments. However, in accordance with Section 13 of the Act on the Statute of Limitations on Debt (728/2003, laki velan vanhentumisesta) a receivable which is the subject of an enforceable judgment becomes time-barred five years after the judgment has been issued.

With regard to the finality of a judgment, both the Hague Convention and the Brussels I recast provide that if an appeal is pending in the country of origin, the court competent in the recognition or enforcement proceedings may suspend the proceedings until a resolution to the appeal has been received.

An appeal against a decision to declare a foreign judgment enforceable may be lodged in accordance with the appeal provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure, unless otherwise provided. If the applicant’s opposing party was served with the decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 31, subsection 2 of the Legal Assistance Act, the decision is, for the purpose of applying the provisions on submitting an appeal, deemed to have been issued on the date on which the opposing party was served with the decision.

As with enforcement measures concerning domestic judgments, the enforcement measures or decisions taken in respect of foreign judgment by the enforcement officer may be appealed against by anyone whose rights are affected by said measure or decision (ulosottovalitus). While the appeal is to be addressed to the district court, the appeal will be delivered to the National Enforcement Authority, and the enforcement officer will then deliver the appeal to the district court that has jurisdiction over the debtor’s domicile or habitual residence. The appeal period is three weeks, usually calculated from the date of the decision or the date on which the party in question was notified of the decision. Filing an appeal against measures taken in the course of the enforcement proceedings does not usually cause the enforcement proceedings to be interrupted, unless the court rules otherwise. If the appeal is accepted, the court will annul or amend the enforcement officer’s decision. In some cases, the enforcement officer can also correct any obvious errors ex officio.

Moreover, enforcement of foreign judgments can also be contested in respect of the validity of the right to be enforced in separate civil proceedings in a competent district court (täytäntöönpanoriita) as described in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments. Grounds for contesting the validity of the right to be enforced include, for example, prior payment of the obligation to be enforced or the right having become time-barred or violating a third party’s right.

In general, Finnish courts can be said to have an arbitration-friendly and non-interventionist attitude towards arbitration. The relevant provisions pertaining to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award are contained in the Finnish Arbitration Act (FAA) (957/1992, laki välimiesmenettelystä) as well as the relevant international treaties. The most relevant of such international treaties is the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Treaty Series 8/1962, the “New York Convention”), which Finland has ratified without reservations. The provisions of the Convention have been included in the FAA.

Enforcement of both domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards requires an application to the competent district court. The procedures have a lot of similarities, but a different set of rules apply for recognition of domestic and foreign arbitral awards, as described in more detail in 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards.

Declaratory awards and awards from states that have not signed the New York Convention are not enforceable in Finland.

In addition, arbitral awards which would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of Finland (ordre public) are not enforced. Therefore, for example, arbitral awards granting punitive and exemplary damages would be refused.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Arbitral awards rendered in Finland are enforceable in accordance with the FAA. The enforceability of arbitral awards is governed by Sections 43 to 45 of the FAA. The actual enforcement process is governed by Chapter 2, Section 19 of the Enforcement Code.

The process for the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards is initiated by an application to the district court. An application for the enforcement of an arbitration award, submitted to the court of first instance, must be accompanied by the arbitration agreement or its relevant provisions and by the arbitral award, either in original or as certified copies. A document drawn up in any language other than Finnish or Swedish must be accompanied by a certified translation into either of these languages, unless the court grants an exemption.

Before making a decision, the court must provide the non-enforcing parties an opportunity to be heard unless there are specific grounds for not doing so. In practice, it is common that a decision on enforcement is made only after hearing the non-enforcing parties. However, enforcement proceedings are intended to be quick and, therefore, non-enforcing parties’ submissions will generally only be in writing. Oral hearings regarding the enforcement of an arbitral award are uncommon.

In Finland, enforcement proceedings overall are still relatively uncommon as parties often comply with arbitral awards voluntarily. Consequently, not much case law is available.

It is worth noting that the court proceedings and all documents filed with the court are, as a rule, public.

Arbitral Awards Made in a Foreign State

Foreign arbitral awards are recognised in Finland in accordance with Sections 52–55 of the FAA. Foreign arbitral awards have the same legal effect as arbitral awards rendered in Finland, but there are certain requirements in the FAA, as further specified in 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, that need to be fulfilled for a foreign award to be enforced in Finland.

Awards rendered in foreign states and which under the FAA are recognised in Finland are enforced in Finland upon request. An application for enforcement must be submitted to the competent court of first instance and will be determined in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.

As with the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards, the application must be accompanied by the arbitration agreement or its relevant provisions and by the arbitral award, either the original or certified copies. A document drawn up in any language other than Finnish or Swedish must be accompanied by a certified translation into either of these languages, unless the court grants an exemption.

In accordance with the FAA, before declaring a foreign arbitration award enforceable, the court must give the party against whom enforcement is sought an opportunity to be heard, unless there is a special reason to the contrary. Unless a witness or another person is to be heard in person, the district court will deal with the matter in chambers.

If the party against whom enforcement is sought invokes that they have made an application, for declaring the award null and void or for setting it aside or for suspension of the award, to a competent authority in a state referred to in Section 53.5 of the FAA, the court may, if it considers it proper, adjourn a decision on the enforcement of the award.

The court may at the same time, on the application of the party claiming enforcement, order the other party to give suitable security and decide that the adjournment is subject to the condition that such security is given.

Court Fees

An application for the declaration of recognition and enforceability does not trigger court fees pursuant to Section 8, subsection 2 of the Act on Court Fees (1455/2015, tuomioistuinmaksulaki). Regarding the requirement of the application for enforcement, the general requirements set out in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments apply.

Duration of the Proceedings

The enforcement proceedings and other enforcement measures must be carried out without undue delay, as provided in Chapter 2, Section 21 of the Enforcement Code. However, enforcement may be postponed if this is deemed to be in the best interests of the respondent and if the postponement does not cause more than insignificant inconvenience to the applicant.

Enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards are intended to be quick and, therefore, non-enforcing parties will generally only be heard in writing. Pursuant to Section 43.2 of the FAA, the application will be decided upon in chambers, unless there is a need to hear a witness or other person. In practice, oral hearings regarding the enforcement of an arbitral award are uncommon.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Enforcement of arbitral awards is, as described in 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards, twofold and it is possible to challenge enforcement in both phases.

With regards to enforceability of arbitral awards, under Section 44 of the FAA, the court may refuse an application for enforcement of a Finnish arbitral award if:

• it finds that the award is null and void;
• the arbitration award has been set aside by a court; or
• a court, on the basis of an action for declaring an award null and void or for setting it aside, has ordered that the award may not be enforced.

In accordance with Section 40 of the FAA, the award is considered null and void:

• to the extent that the arbitrators have resolved an issue that is not arbitrable under Finnish law;
• to the extent that recognition of the award is deemed contrary to Finnish public policy (ordre public);
• if the award is so obscure or incomplete that a decision cannot be inferred from it; or
• if the award was not made in writing or signed by the arbitrator(s).

Further, in accordance with Section 41 of the FAA, the award may be set aside at the request of a party if:

• the arbitrators have exceeded their authority;
• an arbitrator has not been properly appointed;
• an arbitrator has not been impartial and independent and a challenge correctly submitted by a party was not accepted before the award was rendered, or a party became aware of the grounds for a challenge so late that it was not able to challenge the arbitrator before the award was rendered; or
• a party was not provided with sufficient opportunity to present its case.

Finally, the possibilities to submit an appeal against the decision concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award are the same as those generally available concerning appeals against enforcement of domestic judgments (see 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments).

Arbitral Awards Made in a Foreign State

The FAA provides requirements that must be fulfilled for foreign arbitral awards to be recognised. At the request of the party against whom the arbitral award has been invoked, recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if that party submits evidence that the arbitral award is based on a ground referred to in Article 53 of the FAA. The party against whom the arbitral award is invoked has both the burden of arguing and the burden of proving the case.

The grounds in Section 53 of the FAA correspond to the grounds provided for in Article V(1) of the New York Convention. The list in Section 53 of the FAA is exhaustive and no grounds other than those set out in the list may be invoked to refuse recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. A foreign arbitral award will, however, not be recognised if it is contrary to the public policy of Finland.

In accordance with Section 53 of the FAA, a foreign arbitration award is not recognised in Finland against a party who submits proof that:

• a party did not have the capacity to enter into the arbitration agreement or the party was not properly represented when the arbitration agreement was entered into, or that a written arbitration agreement was not, for a reason other than the form of the arbitration agreement, valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or if no conclusions can be drawn regarding what law the parties have intended to have applied, under the law of the state where the award was made;
• the party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the arbitrators have exceeded their authority;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings substantially deviated from the agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such agreement, from the law of the state where the arbitration took place; or
• the arbitration award has not yet become binding on the parties, or its enforcement has been suspended in the state in which, or under the law of which, that award was made, or it has been declared null and void or annulled in said state.