Finland Competition & Regulatory newsletter Spring 2026
This newsletter features a look into developments in Finnish competition and regulatory issues as well as notable recent case law. The newsletter covers developments in joint bidding and in-house procurement rules, as well as the FCCA's proposed penalty payment for providing incorrect and misleading information. The newsletter also includes a look into the Supreme Administrative Court's recent rulings within the Finnish competition law field.
Supreme Administrative Court issues first in-depth decision on joint bidding
In December 2025, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court gave its first ever judgment examining the lawfulness of bidding co-operation under competition rules in detail. The case concerned joint bids by bus companies through two joint ventures in three public transport tenders in the Turku region in 2013, 2014 and 2016.
After a three-to-two vote, the Supreme Administrative Court did not change the Market Court's judgment from 2023. Infringement fines totaling approximately EUR 1.5 million imposed by the Market Court consequently remained in force.
In assessing potential competition, the existence of which is a prerequisite for the prohibition on anti-competitive horizontal co-operation to apply, the Supreme Administrative Court focused on whether the individual bus companies had real and concrete possibilities to submit an independent bid and carry out the contract for each of the tenders. The Court found that the owners of the joint ventures were potential competitors in the tenders in most respects, as they could have, based on an objective assessment, acquired the necessary equipment and personnel resources with sufficient certainty, as well as independently carried the contract-related risks. In its assessment, the Court gave weight to the bus companies' long experience in the business. A company's subjective willingness on whether to bid independently or not is not decisive, the Court noted.
The Court held that the joint bids constituted restrictions of competition by object, one infringement covering the 2013 and 2014 tenders and another covering the 2016 tender. The allocation of the routes for operation broadly according to ownership in the joint ventures meant that the object was to share the markets between the owners, according to the Court. The joint bids included fixing a single price and were liable to decrease price competition between the companies. The possible pro-competitive effects were not sufficient to question the harmfulness to competition.
The Court rejected the efficiency defence raised by the parties, finding that the permanent allocation of the bus operations based on ownership was not indispensable to achieving efficiencies and that any efficiencies could have been achieved by less restrictive means.
Supreme Administrative Court ruling clarifies in-house procurement rules
In October 2025, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court gave a ruling on public procurement rules involving in-house entities, further clarifying the condition that a contracting authority must exercise control over an in-house entity for services or products to be purchased without a competitive tendering procedure.
The case concerned the procurement of around EUR 9.3 million worth of human resources services and related systems from Sarastia Oy by the wellbeing services county of Vantaa and Kerava in 2022. The contracting authority treated the purchase as an in-house procurement and did not conduct a competitive tendering procedure. At the time, the wellbeing services county held only 0.04 per cent of Sarastia's shares.
The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Market Court's decision in the case. The Court assessed whether the condition of exercising control (derived from Article 12 of Directive 2014/24/EU and the corresponding Finnish rules) was met by Sarastia's ownership structure and governance model as a whole. Because the wellbeing services county held only a very small share in Sarastia and had no sole or joint nomination rights in Sarastia's decision-making bodies beyond the influence granted by its small number of votes, it did not have decisive influence over the company's strategic objectives and important decisions. As a result, Sarastia could not be treated as an in-house entity, making the direct award unlawful.
This ruling provides valuable guidance on interpreting the controlling interest condition for in-house entity procurements. Interestingly, only a few days after the Supreme Administrative Court's decision, the Market Court gave two other rulings concerning in-house entities. In those cases, the Market Court noted that because (i) ownership and control in the relevant in-house entity was not concentrated in the hands of one or a small number of shareholders, (ii) the contracting entities whose decisions were appealed had (together with several other contracting entities) joint representation in the in-house entity's Board, and (iii) the contracting entities were also active in one or more steering groups that could influence the in-house entity's decision-making, it could be assumed that the contracting entities exercised control to a sufficient degree and could lawfully engage in in-house purchases.
However, it remains to be seen how long the rules remain relevant in Finland. A revision of the Finnish Public Contracts Act is also underway, with the proposed amendments including an additional condition of a minimum ownership threshold of 10 per cent for entities to qualify as in-house. The legislative reform is expected to come into force later in 2026.
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority proposes a penalty payment for providing incorrect, incomplete, and misleading information
On 17 November 2025, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) proposed a penalty payment of approximately EUR 7.6 million on Finland's incumbent airline, Finnair, for breaching procedural requirements under competition law. According to the FCCA, Finnair submitted incorrect, incomplete, and misleading responses to information requests issued by the FCCA.
The underlying investigation concerns Finnair's alleged anticompetitive conduct in restricting online travel agencies' pricing of flight tickets. Following a decision by the Swedish Competition Authority in July 2023 by which Finnair entered into commitments regarding flights to and from Sweden, the FCCA launched its own investigation in autumn 2023 into Finnair's conduct concerning flights to and from Finland. The FCCA's investigation into Finnair's anticompetitive conduct remains ongoing.
The FCCA's procedural infringement fine case centers on four allegedly deficient responses Finnair submitted. According to the FCCA, Finnair falsely claimed it had not changed its practices beyond Sweden and that no internal documents relating to such changes existed. The airline asserted that it had not engaged in equivalent communication or taken equivalent measures concerning Finland. The FCCA holds that evidence obtained in an inspection shows Finnair had in fact monitored online travel agencies' pricing on Finnish flights since 2018 and had imposed restrictions on ticket sales rights for certain routes to and from Finland. Finnair also failed to disclose relevant correspondence with travel agencies and omitted a requested listing of all contacts made since 2019.
The matter is pending at the Market Court.
The case demonstrates the importance of accuracy when responding to competition authority information requests. This is the second infringement fine proposed by the FCCA in a relatively short period of time – the Market Court fined earlier in 2025 another company for allegedly obstructing an inspection by the FCCA. The latter case is pending at the Supreme Administrative Court. Together, the matters underscore that the FCCA is fully prepared to propose substantial penalties for procedural breaches that obstruct competition investigations.
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority addresses price recommendations in the physiotherapy sector
The FCCA addressed in October 2025 the Association of Finnish Physiotherapists in a letter regarding the Association's price recommendations. According to the FCCA's letter, the Association had, through its website, webinars, business advisory services, and its published journal, taken positions on physiotherapy pricing. The FCCA considered that the representatives of the Association had commented on pricing in a manner that could be considered problematic from the competition law perspective.
Based on the FCCA's investigation, the Association had been concerned about price levels in the market and has actively attempted to address the issue of excessively low prices. The representatives of the Association had, inter alia, presented statements on actual prices, highlighting the view that certain prices were considered too low, as well as issued recommendations for pricing home and remote visits.
The FCCA recommended that they conduct a self-assessment of their activities. Following the FCCA intervention, the Association has stated that it has removed all material that could be considered as price recommendations from its website and other online sources.
In its letter, the FCCA recommended that physiotherapy businesses to ensure that their pricing decisions are made independently and the Association does not publish recommendations or guidance that could be considered anti-competitive. The investigations were closed but the FCCA may reopen the matter if it is deemed necessary. The matter demonstrates the FCCA's willingness in some circumstances not to pursue an infringement fine even if the conduct at issue appears to have breached competition rules. For example, if the conduct at issue has been minor in scope or duration, the FCCA may prioritise other matters.
Other recent developments in the Finnish competition law field
The competition authority had the right to dismiss a request for action concerning forest certification aimed at promoting sustainability
In its ruling on 24 October 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the FCCA had been entitled to dismiss a request for action concerning whether certain forestry companies had engaged in conduct prohibited under competition law by participating in the Forest Stewardship Council certification scheme. The FSC standard and related contractual cooperation aimed to promote responsible forest management and thus sustainability goals, particularly through FSC certification.
The Supreme Administrative Court's decision largely followed the Market Court's assessment. In its earlier decision, the Market Court approved the FCCA's use of its right of priority in a situation involving a probability assessment based on a preliminary investigation. The Market Court took the view that the FCCA had been able to assess that the case was unlikely to involve prohibited competition restriction, based on, inter alia, the voluntary nature of the FSC standard as well as the facts that the forest companies were not able to determine the content of the standard decided independently on timber procurement from various areas.
The Supreme Administrative Court upholds the decision to impose an infringement fine on Valio for breaching the commitments of the Heinon Tukku acquisition
On 16 January 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld a EUR 600,000 fine imposed on dairy producer Valio by the Market Court for breach of the merger control commitments given in the context of Valio's acquisition of groceries wholesaler Heinon Tukku. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the FCCA's request to increase the penalty payment to EUR 900,000 and ordered the FCCA to pay Valio's legal costs in the Supreme Administrative Court.
The breached commitments concerned Valio's obligation to protect the confidential information of Valio's competitors held by acquired Heinon Tukku. The Supreme Administrative Court assessed whether the employees of Heinon Tukku had become subject to the commitments immediately after the closing of the acquisition or only when Heinon Tukku was merged with Valio later on. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Market Court that the commitment was expressly directed only at Valio's employees and therefore concerned Heinon Tukku employees only after the merger of Valio's and Heinon Tukku's business operations.
The Supreme Administrative Court rejects appeal concerning the competition authority's power to request information on acquisitions as part of an ongoing abuse of dominance investigation
On 9 December 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected Finnish post carrier incumbent Posti Group's appeal and upheld the Market Court's decision concerning the FCCA's authority to request information on certain acquisitions made by Posti. The matter arose from an investigation into whether Posti Group and its subsidiaries had engaged in abuse of a dominant position prohibited under competition rules. The FCCA requested information on certain Posti's acquisitions between 2017 and 2023 as part of its investigation into suspected abuse of dominance. Posti argued that the FCCA had exceeded its investigative powers and that the requested information was unnecessary for the investigation. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Market Court that the FCCA had acted within the scope of its authority under the Competition Act when it required Posti to submit the requested information.
Additional information and previous newsletter
Please contact our Competition & Regulatory practice, if you have any questions regarding the topics covered in this newsletter. You can find the previous Competition & Regulatory newsletter here.
