Arbitration is a well-established form of dispute resolution in Finland. It is frequently used in commercial disputes between domestic parties, and also in disputes between Finnish and international parties. In the majority of arbitrations, at least one of the parties is from Finland. Arbitration is often chosen by domestic parties in contracts as the method of dispute resolution. While both institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration are used, most arbitrations in Finland are institutional.

Arbitration is a very common method for resolving commercial disputes across all industries, and it is difficult to pinpoint any particular industry that has experienced significantly more arbitration activity in recent years, compared to others.

The Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (FAI) is the leading arbitration institution in Finland. Correspondingly, the most used rules for arbitration are the Arbitration Rules of the Finland Chambers of Commerce (“FAI Rules”); the current rules came into effect on 1 January 2024.

FAI is by far the largest arbitration institute in Finland, leaving parties with no other viable domestic alternatives. In addition, FAI is favoured for its trustworthiness, its efficiency, its rules reflecting best international practices, and its alignment with both Finnish and international business interests.

Other frequently used institutions include the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

There are no specific arbitration courts in Finland. All matters related to arbitration are heard by the general courts – ie, the District Courts, the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Finland.

Arbitration in Finland is governed by the Finnish Arbitration Act (967/1992, as amended – the “Arbitration Act”), which entered into force on 1 December 1992 and governs both international and domestic arbitration without distinction. The Arbitration Act is based on the 1985 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law (“Model Law”), but Finland is not officially a Model Law country.

While the Arbitration Act closely reflects the essential provisions of the Model Law, it nevertheless diverges from it in some respects. The most noticeable difference is the possibility for a party to request a final award to be declared null and void without a time limit (see 11.1 Grounds for Appeal). Another example is that the Arbitration Act, unlike the Model Law, does not include provisions on arbitrators’ powers to order interim measures.

Conversely, the Arbitration Act includes certain provisions that are absent from the Model Law – eg, concerning the arbitrability of a dispute.

Finland is currently in the process of reforming its Arbitration Act; a legislative proposal is expected to be submitted to Parliament in the spring of 2026. The purpose of the reform is to enhance the competitiveness of Finnish arbitration by modernising the legislation where necessary. As a result, the Arbitration Act will likely become even more closely aligned with the Model Law.

According to the Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be valid. An arbitration agreement is deemed to be in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or in correspondence between the parties. It is also considered to be in writing if the parties exchange letters or use electronic communications in which they have agreed to have disputes settled in arbitration. The requirement of written form is also considered to be fulfilled if the arbitration agreement is incorporated by reference into an agreement that meets the above-mentioned requirements.

In addition, an arbitration agreement must refer either to a specific legal relationship (eg, a specific contract or set of contracts) or to an existing dispute. An agreement to arbitrate all future disputes without specifying the substance or the basis of the dispute in any way would not be considered binding in Finland.

In accordance with the Arbitration Act, any dispute in a civil or commercial matter that can be settled by agreement can be referred to arbitration. Consequently, an arbitral tribunal cannot rule on, for example, criminal matters, divorce or child custody matters. However, the fact that the matter under arbitration may contain acts that constitute a criminal offence does not limit the arbitrability of the related civil claims.

The arbitrability of a dispute is decided by the arbitral tribunal on its own initiative or at the request of a party. However, the tribunal’s ruling does not bind a court tasked with determining whether the dispute is non-arbitrable. Any arbitral award relating to a non-arbitrable matter is deemed null and void.

The Arbitration Act does not contain provisions on how to determine the law governing the arbitration agreement. If the parties have not agreed on the governing law, it is to be decided by the arbitral tribunal or court reviewing the arbitration agreement. In practice, tribunals and courts will usually apply the law governing the main agreement in which the arbitration clause is contained, or the law of the seat of arbitration.

Finnish courts are very arbitration-friendly, and valid arbitration agreements are, as a rule, enforced. If a dispute pending before a general court is covered by an arbitration agreement, the court will decline jurisdiction in the matter and will not take the matter into consideration. The court can only determine whether the arbitration agreement is valid, in force and applicable to the dispute in hand. An arbitration agreement must be invoked by a party to the dispute, and the court cannot decline jurisdiction on its own initiative.

In Finland, the rule of separability is applied, and an arbitration clause is reviewed and assessed separately from the rest of the contract in which the clause is contained. Therefore, an arbitral clause may be considered valid even if the rest of the contract in which it is set forth is invalid.

Parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators is broad. However, it has been generally held in Finnish legal literature that an arbitration agreement cannot validly provide for one party’s right to appoint more arbitrators than the other, nor for the sole arbitrator to be appointed exclusively by one party. It is also not permitted for an entity closely affiliated with a party to choose the sole arbitrator or the presiding arbitrator.

As mentioned in 4.1 Limits on Selection, parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators is broad. The Arbitration Act provides default procedures for appointing arbitrators when the parties have not agreed otherwise.

Unless agreed otherwise, the number of arbitrators shall be three, and the party initiating the arbitration shall appoint one arbitrator in its notice of arbitration. The other party shall then appoint one arbitrator within 30 days of receiving the notice of arbitration. The arbitrators thus appointed shall appoint one more arbitrator to act as the presiding arbitrator.

If a party fails to fulfil its obligation to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of receiving a notice of arbitration, the other party may request a court to appoint the missing arbitrator. If the arbitrators appointed by the parties fail to appoint a presiding arbitrator, a court may appoint the presiding arbitrator at a party’s request.

If the dispute is to be decided by a sole arbitrator but the parties have not agreed on the arbitrator within 30 days of the date when a party receives the notice of arbitration from the other party, any party may request the court to appoint the arbitrator.

The FAI Rules also provide for specific default procedures for selecting arbitrators.

Default Procedures in Multiparty Arbitration

The Arbitration Act does not specifically address multiparty arbitration, but the default procedure used in bi-party arbitration is also applicable in multiparty arbitration. The FAI Rules provide for a default procedure applicable to multiparty arbitration.

As mentioned in 4.2 Default Procedures, in ad hoc arbitration, a court may appoint arbitrators where the parties fail to appoint the arbitrator themselves, or where the arbitrators appointed by the parties fail to appoint a presiding arbitrator. This intervention of the court is always subject to a request by a party to the arbitration.

A court may also appoint arbitrators, at the request of a party, in cases where an appointed arbitrator dies, resigns or is removed.

Under the Arbitration Act, on the challenge of a party, an arbitrator shall be disqualified if they would have been disqualified from hearing the case as a judge, or if other circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence as an arbitrator. The provisions on the disqualification of judges are contained in the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure.

If the appointment of an arbitrator is challenged, it will be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Courts are only competent to examine an arbitrator's impartiality or independence during set-aside proceedings.

Under the Arbitration Act, arbitrators must be impartial and independent in their duties. Before accepting an appointment, the prospective arbitrator shall disclose any circumstances likely to endanger or give rise to justifiable doubts as their impartiality and independence as an arbitrator.

The FAI Rules have similar requirements of impartiality, independency and disclosure.

An arbitral tribunal is obliged to rule on a party’s challenge to the tribunal’s own jurisdiction. Under the FAI Rules, the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections concerning the existence, validity or applicability of the arbitration agreement.

However, the arbitral tribunal’s decision on competence is ultimately not binding on the courts, as a party has the right to request a court to rule on the issue by bringing a declaratory action claim regarding the validity or scope of the arbitration agreement. Even if the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is challenged in court, the arbitrators may commence or continue the arbitration proceedings, except in situations where a court finds the arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction on the issue and the decision has become final.

Court Review of Arbitral Tribunal Jurisdiction in Finland

As described in 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction, Finnish courts have jurisdiction to review claims regarding the validity or scope of an arbitration agreement. The jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal may also be tried in court where a party to court proceedings in a civil dispute objects to the court’s jurisdiction and invokes an arbitration agreement before addressing the merits of the matter.

As described in 3.3 National Courts' Approach, Finnish courts are generally regarded as being friendly towards arbitration, and arbitration is a common way of settling business disputes in Finland. Provided that an arbitration agreement is invoked in time, courts will not take a matter that falls within the scope of the agreement into further consideration, but will refer the matter to arbitration.

In addition, a court can set aside an arbitration award upon the request of a party, if the arbitrators have exceeded their authority.

Review of Negative Rulings on Jurisdiction

Finnish courts are not bound by either positive or negative jurisdictional rulings made by arbitral tribunals. However, a negative ruling on jurisdiction by an arbitral tribunal cannot, in itself, be directly challenged in court. The Arbitration Act is silent on the treatment of negative jurisdictional rulings, but a party to the arbitration may bring a declaratory action before a court to confirm that the matter is subject to arbitration. If the court finds that the tribunal did have jurisdiction, the arbitration proceedings must be commenced anew.

A party may challenge the arbitral tribunal’s competence in court as soon as a case has been filed for arbitration, during the arbitral proceedings and after an arbitral award has been rendered. Despite this, an arbitral tribunal may proceed with the case while a challenge concerning its jurisdiction is pending in court.

As regards an arbitral award that has already been rendered, the Arbitration Act provides that an action for setting aside an arbitration award (based on lack of jurisdiction, for example) shall be brought within three months of the date on which a party to the arbitration received a copy of the award.

Questions concerning admissibility and jurisdiction are reviewed by the courts de novo.

For judicial review of the merits of arbitral awards, see 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review.

As noted in 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention and 5.3 Timing of Challenge, Finnish courts are arbitration-friendly and, under the Arbitration Act, are obliged to favour arbitration over regular court proceedings where an arbitration agreement has been invoked in a timely manner. However, courts cannot decline jurisdiction merely due to the existence of an arbitration agreement (ex officio); the arbitration agreement must be explicitly invoked by a party.

As a general rule, an arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over non-signatory parties to an arbitration agreement. The personal scope of an arbitration agreement must be assessed in accordance with the general principles of Finnish contract law, and in certain circumstances third parties (both domestic and foreign) may also invoke an arbitration agreement. For example, arbitration agreements are generally binding on successors and assignees, including, among others, bankruptcy estates.

The Supreme Court of Finland has ruled that, in certain situations, an arbitration agreement may be extended to a non-signatory third party based on its conduct de facto and a non-signatory guarantor.

The Arbitration Act is silent on the issue of interim relief, but parties may agree that such measures may be granted by the arbitral tribunal. The Arbitration Act provides that arbitrators may not impose the threat of a fine nor issue orders regarding other coercive means.

Under the FAI Rules, an arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant any interim measures of protection it deems appropriate. However, it is essential to note that, in Finland, interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal are not enforceable, as only courts may grant binding and enforceable interim relief.

Finnish Courts and Interim Relief in Arbitral Proceedings

As stated in 6.1 Types of Relief, only courts may grant binding and enforceable interim relief. Courts may grant interim measures before and during arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration Act. The application of a party to a judicial authority for such measures is not considered an infringement or a waiver of the arbitration agreement under the FAI Rules.

Interim Relief and Foreign-Seated Arbitrations

Finnish courts can grant interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations to the same extent as they can in support of national arbitral proceedings. A court may grant a broad range of interim measures, including:

• the seizure of movable or real property;
• prohibiting the deed or action of the opposing party under threat of a fine;
• ordering the opposing party to do something under threat of a fine;
• empowering the applicant to do something or to have something done;
• ordering that property of the opposing party be placed under the administration and care of a trustee; and
• ordering other measures necessary to secure the right of the applicant.

Emergency Arbitrators

The matter of emergency arbitrators is not regulated by law in Finland, but the FAI Rules allow for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator if a party is in need of urgent interim protection measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. An emergency arbitrator has the same power to grant any interim protection measures as an arbitral tribunal under the FAI Rules.

As with interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal, interim measures granted by emergency arbitrators are not enforceable. As expressed in the FAI Rules, the provisions concerning the appointment of an emergency arbitrator are not intended to prevent a party from seeking urgent interim protection measures from a competent judicial authority.

The Arbitration Act grants arbitrators the right to order a party to compensate the other party for their costs in the arbitration proceedings, in whole or in part. However, parties may also agree otherwise. Arbitrators may demand an advance on the compensation for their work and expenses, or a security thereof. In institutional arbitration under the FAI Rules, the parties are obliged to pay an advance on costs fixed by the Institute.

National courts are not explicitly authorised to impose security for costs under the Arbitration Act. However, nothing prevents a party, from seeking interim relief from a court to ensure coverage of the costs.

Arbitration and arbitral procedures are governed by the Arbitration Act.

Parties to arbitration are generally free to agree on the procedure of arbitration, and may choose to agree on institutional arbitration under the FAI Rules, for example. See also 7.2 Procedural Steps and 7.3 Powers and Duties of Arbitrators regarding the provisions of the Arbitration Act on the procedure of arbitration.

The Arbitration Act does not include many procedural rules. It requires only that:

• the parties are given sufficient opportunity to present their case;
• the arbitrators shall take into account the requirements of impartiality and expediency; and
• the arbitrators shall promote an appropriate and expedient settlement of the matter.

The Arbitration Act imposes various powers and duties upon arbitrators.

As examples of powers, the Arbitration Act gives arbitrators the power to:

• determine the place of arbitration (when the parties have not come into agreement on the place of arbitration);
• request (not order) the parties to hand over all the documents that may have relevance in the matter;
• request that a party, a witness or any other person appear to be heard in the matter;
• request a party or any other person in possession of a document or other object that may have relevance as evidence to produce the document or object; and
• appoint an expert witness to conduct examinations.

As examples of duties, the Arbitration Act imposes upon arbitrators the duty to:

• determine the language of the arbitration proceedings (unless the parties have agreed thereupon);
• promote an appropriate and expedient settlement of the matter;
• issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings if the parties agree not to continue the arbitration;
• decide the dispute in accordance with law, which the parties may have designated; and
• render the award in writing and sign it.

In Finland, representing a client in court is generally only possible for persons who meet certain qualifications. An attorney-at-law (a member of the Finnish Bar Association), a public legal aid attorney or a licensed legal counsel may serve as an attorney or legal counsel in court. However, in arbitral proceedings, a party’s legal representative does not have to meet these qualifications, as there are no restrictions concerning representation before an arbitral tribunal.

Finnish attorneys-at-law must comply with the Finnish Bar Association’s Code of Conduct in arbitral proceedings. In cross-border activities within the EU and the EEA, attorneys-at-law shall primarily observe the Code of Conduct for European attorneys-at-law to the extent the Delegation of the Bar Association has established it to be binding on Finnish attorneys-at-law, and secondarily the domestic Code of Conduct.

General

In accordance with the overarching principle of party autonomy under Finnish arbitration law, it is for the parties to supply the evidence required to present their case as they see fit. As a starting point, the initiative in respect of evidence is therefore exclusively in the hands of the parties, not the arbitral tribunal. However, the arbitral tribunal has considerable powers – at the request of a party or on its own motion – to request a party to produce documents or any person to appear as a witness (see 8.3 Powers of Compulsion).

Written Evidence and Witness Statements

At the outset, the parties are allowed to rely on virtually all kinds of documents to prove their respective cases. As a main rule, there are no limitations as to who can be heard as a witness; for example, employee witness testimony is allowed.

The Arbitration Act remains silent on how the examination of witnesses and experts should be conducted. Unlike in Finnish court litigation, written witness statements are frequently used in international arbitration proceedings. If the parties agree on using witness statements, the witness statements will usually be used in place of direct examination. However, it is general practice that the witness who has submitted a witness statement shall, upon request of the opposing counsel, appear at the hearing for cross-examination.

Disclosure

Arbitrators may request parties to disclose documents that may be relevant as evidence. This request may be initiated either by the arbitral tribunal on its own initiative or at a party’s request. Should a party make such a request, the documents must be identified with sufficient detail, and Finnish arbitration law is unfamiliar with common law type discovery. In practice, arbitral tribunals readily issue requests for disclosure if the identification requirement is fulfilled and the requested documents are not clearly irrelevant. So-called fishing expeditions are not allowed under Finnish law.

Privilege Rules

The Arbitration Act does not contain specific provisions on privilege, but it is generally held that rules of privilege apply in arbitration. Legal privilege does not, at the outset, apply to in-house legal counsel, but any attorney-client exchange of information or documents is covered by legal privilege.

In Finland, arbitrators – like judges – may freely evaluate the evidence presented by the parties. No formal rules of evidence exist.

The parties are free to agree on the applicable rules of evidence as well as the type of evidence admissible. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may decide on the conduct of the proceedings as it sees fit, taking the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the requirements of impartiality and speed into consideration. The same rules of evidence apply in both international and domestic arbitration, without distinction.

The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are broadly used as reference or directly applied in arbitrations seated in Finland.

An arbitral tribunal may order a party or any other person in possession of a document or other object that may have relevance for the outcome of the dispute to produce the document or object in question, either at the request of a party or on its own motion. The arbitral tribunal may also request that a party or any other person appears to be heard in the matter. The arbitral tribunal does not, however, have the power to impose fines or order other coercive measures, nor administer an affirmation. The arbitral tribunal may instead attach evidentiary weight to the fact that a party disregards the arbitral tribunal’s request to produce documents. Consequently, arbitral tribunals' requests to produce evidence are generally well respected.

Subject to approval of the arbitral tribunal, a party may also apply to the District Court for an order that a party, witness or expert be heard by the court under oath, or that a party or a third person be compelled to present a document or object that may be relevant as evidence in the case. Although the option is available, it is rare for arbitral tribunals to involve courts in taking evidence in arbitration proceedings.

Arbitration is private in the sense that information on the existence of the arbitration cannot be obtained from any public register, and arbitration proceedings are not public. However, arbitration is not automatically confidential.

The Arbitration Act does not contain any express provisions regarding confidentiality in arbitration proceedings. The FAI Rules contain a broad obligation of confidentiality for the arbitral tribunal, the FAI and the parties, which shall apply unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

In the absence of a confidentiality agreement or reference to institutional rules providing for confidentiality, the arbitration or its constituent parts are not inherently confidential.

Even if the arbitration is confidential – whether through the parties’ explicit agreement or relevant institutional rules – this confidentiality is not absolute, especially where court involvement is necessary. It is generally accepted that a party may disclose information from the arbitration in subsequent legal proceedings, such as those aimed at enforcing or challenging an arbitral award, to the extent it is necessary.

An arbitral award must be in writing and signed by all arbitrators. An arbitral award shall also state the date of its issuance and the place of arbitration.

The absence of the signature of one or more arbitrators will not make the award null and void if it has been signed by the majority of all members of the arbitral tribunal and if they have stated the reason why an arbitrator who participated in the arbitration has not signed the award.

Unlike the Arbitration Act, the FAI Rules also require that the arbitral tribunal state the grounds upon which the award is based, unless the parties have agreed that no grounds are to be given.

Under the Arbitration Act, there are no statutory time limits on the delivery of the award. According to the FAI Rules, the final award shall be rendered no later than nine months from the date on which the arbitral tribunal received the case file from the FAI. This time limit may be extended upon a reasoned request of the arbitral tribunal or, if deemed necessary, on the FAI’s own initiative.

The Arbitration Act does not impose categorical restrictions on specific types of remedies or damages. Instead, it establishes a system where public policy serves as the primary limitation and, therefore, remedies that violate Finnish public policy are prohibited (such as punitive damages). Arbitrators must operate within their granted authority and cannot exceed the scope of their mandate. The award must be based on law, unless the parties have explicitly agreed that the arbitral tribunal may base its award on ex aequo et bono. Parties retain significant autonomy to define the scope of relief sought and the legal framework governing their dispute.

Parties retain the right to claim interest as part of their substantive claims. The interest may be agreed upon by the parties or determined under the applicable substantive law.

In Finland, a “costs follow the event” approach is followed: unless the parties have agreed otherwise, arbitration costs are typically paid by the unsuccessful party. Nevertheless, the arbitral tribunal retains the discretion to distribute any arbitration costs between the parties based on the specific circumstances of each case. An allocation of costs that is proportional to the claimant’s success is common.

Unless otherwise agreed, the parties bear joint and several liability for the arbitral tribunal's fees and costs, as well as the FAI's administrative fees and expenses in arbitrations governed by the FAI Rules. Typically, however, the unsuccessful party will be required to reimburse the successful party for any portion of arbitrators' fees or costs that the successful party has paid.

An arbitral award cannot be appealed. An award may only be deemed null and void or set aside, and the conditions for doing so closely mirror those on which the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award can be refused under the New York Convention.

An award is null and void if:

• the arbitral tribunal has decided that an issue is non-arbitrable under Finnish law;
• recognition of the award would be against Finnish public policy;
• the arbitral award is so obscure or incomplete that it does not indicate how the dispute has been decided; or
• the arbitral award is not in writing or signed by the arbitrators.

There is no time limit to challenge an award as null and void.

An arbitral award may be set aside if:

• the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority;
• an arbitrator had not been properly appointed;
• an arbitrator could have been disqualified but a challenge duly made by a party had not been accepted before the arbitral award was made;
• a party was not aware of the grounds for disqualification and was not able to challenge the arbitrator before the arbitral award was rendered; or
• the arbitral tribunal did not give a party sufficient opportunity to present its case.

An action for setting aside an award must be brought before the District Court in whose circuit the award was given within three months of the date on which the party received a copy of the award.

For minor errors, the primary remedy is to provide the arbitrators with an opportunity to correct or supplement the arbitral award.

It is generally accepted in Finland that a party cannot waive its right to challenge an award before the award has been rendered. However, a party may forfeit its right to rely on specific grounds for annulling an award through its conduct. For instance, if a party fails to raise objections regarding an arbitrator's eligibility or impartiality when it was aware of such issues, that party may be considered to have relinquished its right to challenge the award on those particular grounds.

In the absence of legislative guidelines and case law, it is unclear whether parties can agree on the right of appeal or expand the scope of challenge under Finnish law. In legal literature, it has been held that parties cannot by agreement impose new tasks on the court or deviate from the procedural rules binding the court. A court cannot, on the basis of an arbitration clause, be compelled to act as an appellate body, since no such judicial function is provided for by statute such as the Arbitration Act.

On the other hand, the possibility of extending the grounds for nullity and setting aside remains fairly open.

Finnish law establishes a deferential standard with no judicial review of the merits of arbitral awards. Courts are limited to examining specific procedural and jurisdictional issues through the exhaustive grounds provided in the Arbitration Act.

Finland is a signatory to the New York Convention, which has been in force in Finland without reservations since 19 April 1962.

In order for an arbitral award to be enforceable, a decision on the enforcement of the award shall be made by a District Court. An application for the enforcement of an arbitral award shall be submitted to the District Court, together with the original arbitration agreement and the original award or certified copies of both. If any of the documents are in a language other than Finnish or Swedish, a certified translation into either of these languages must also be provided, unless the court grants an exemption.

Before enforcement is granted, the party against whom enforcement is sought shall be given an opportunity to be heard, unless there are special reasons to the contrary.

As a general rule, if a court at the seat of arbitration has set aside an award, such award will not be recognised or enforced in Finland. If there are ongoing set-aside proceedings at the seat, the Finnish court may postpone its decision on enforcing the award, if it finds it appropriate to do so.

The extent to which states or state entities may successfully raise sovereign immunity as a defence at the enforcement stage in Finland is limited. Success is restricted to the narrow category of disputes involving genuine sovereign governmental acts (acta jure imperii), while the vast majority of commercial and private law matters (acta jure gestionis) cannot benefit from immunity protection.

Finnish courts have adopted a highly supportive approach to both domestic and international arbitration, with a high threshold for refusal of recognition and enforcement.

According to the Arbitration Act, a foreign award will not be recognised in Finland if the party against whom the award is being enforced furnishes proof that:

• the arbitration agreement was invalid;
• the party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or the party was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the arbitral tribunal has exceeded its authority;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the proceedings themselves substantially deviated from the agreement or the law of the state where the arbitration took place; or

• the arbitral award has not yet become binding on the parties or it has been declared null and void or set aside or suspended in the state in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

The Arbitration Act does not contain the provision found in Article V 2. a) of the New York Convention. Consequently, a foreign arbitral award cannot be challenged if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Finnish law, except where the award would also be against Finnish public policy.

An arbitral award shall not be recognised to the extent that it is contrary to the public policy of Finland.

Arbitration in Finland is based on consent between the parties, and there is no statutory framework for class or group arbitration akin to that found in some other jurisdictions. As such, mass claims or representative proceedings are not arbitrable unless all claimants and respondents agree to submit the dispute to arbitration under a mutually acceptable framework.

The only exemption to this general rule is the redemption (squeeze-out) procedure under the Finnish Limited Liability Companies Act, where the redemption price payable by the majority (> 90%) shareholder to the minority shareholders is determined through a statutory arbitration procedure.

Other than the requirements set out for arbitrators in the Arbitration Act (see 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements), there are no mandatory ethical codes or other professional standards that would apply to counsel and arbitrators in Finland.

Finnish attorneys-at-law must comply with the Finnish Bar Association’s Code of Conduct when acting as an arbitrator or counsel in arbitral proceedings. It is currently somewhat uncertain whether licensed legal counsel are required to adhere to their statutory code of conduct when they act as arbitrators or counsel in arbitral proceedings.

There are no statutory regulations concerning third-party funding in Finland. In other words, third-party funding is not prohibited and is used in practice, especially in international arbitrations seated in Finland.

Article 21.5 of the FAI Rules obligates the parties to disclose the existence and identity of third-party funders. While ad hoc proceedings do not have a specific rule regarding the matter, similar disclosure is nonetheless advisable.

In practice, consolidation is possible only with express party agreement.

Article 14 of the FAI Rules includes an express party agreement allowing for consolidation when all claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement, or when the claims arise under different but non-contradicting arbitration agreements and are in connection with the same legal relationship. When deciding whether to consolidate arbitrations, the FAI Board will take into account any relevant circumstances brought to its attention by the parties.

Finnish law adheres to the principle of privity of contract and, as such, third parties can only exceptionally be bound by an arbitration agreement or award.

Generally, with a few exceptions, assignees and successors of a party will be bound by arbitration agreements and awards. In addition, third parties benefitting from the agreement or having a right of recourse relating to the agreement (such as the insurer or guarantor of a party) will generally, with some exceptions, be bound by an arbitration agreement. The so-called group of companies doctrine and piercing the corporate veil are very rarely applied in Finnish legal praxis, if at all.

Finnish courts do not have a statutory jurisdiction to bind third parties (foreign or domestic) to arbitral agreements. The courts will, however, respect an arbitration agreement where a party to a court proceeding invokes their right to have the dispute resolved in arbitration.