What is an incident of navigation under UNCLOS Article 97(1)?

On the Helsinki Court of Appeal's reasoning it is an occurrence connected with the movement and steering of a ship from which damage results, comparable to a collision, and fortuitous in the sense of not being intentional in relation to its consequence.

Why did the Court of Appeal hold that Article 97 UNCLOS did not apply to the Eagle S?

It accepted that the sudden loss of the anchor was a fortuity. But taking account of the crew's alleged conduct when the authorities made contact and the continuation of the anchor drag for more than three hours thereafter, the event as a whole was no longer fortuitous and therefore no longer an incident of navigation.

Does UNCLOS Article 113 confine prosecution for submarine cable damage to the flag State?

The Helsinki Court of Appeal held that it does not. Article 113 obliges contracting States to criminalise cable damage; it does not allocate international criminal jurisdiction between courts.

Is the Eagle S decision final?

No. The Court of Appeal decision is subject to an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Finland, and the substantive charges remain to be decided by the Helsinki District Court.

LKOS Law Office - Insights

Anchor, Cable, Jurisdiction: The Eagle S Appeal and UNCLOS Article 97

Tue, 01 Sep 2026 06:22:00 +0000

1 September 2026, 09:22 · Oscari Seppälä and Liene Krumina · Maritime & Transport Law

On 27 August 2026 the Helsinki Court of Appeal quashed the dismissal of the Eagle S prosecution and remitted the case to the Helsinki District Court. Finland therefore has criminal jurisdiction over the master and officers of a Cook Islands–flagged tanker whose dragging anchor severed the EstLink 2 power interconnector and four telecommunications cables in the Finnish exclusive economic zone on 25 December 2024.

The reversal turns on a single concept. The District Court had held the casualty to be an "incident of navigation" under Article 97(1) UNCLOS, which confines penal proceedings against a master or crew to the flag State or the State of nationality. The Court of Appeal agreed that the anchor's sudden loss was a fortuity but held that the character of the event did not survive what the crew allegedly did next. Once the vessel had been contacted by the authorities, allegedly misreported the position of her anchors and continued dragging for more than three hours, the occurrence ceased to be fortuitous and Article 97(1) ceased to apply.

Nothing has yet been decided on guilt. The decision is one of jurisdiction, and it is subject to an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Finland. Read our analysis in Finnish from the Appeal Court judgement.

The casualty, in eight lines

The tanker Eagle S, flying the flag of the Cook Islands, owned by Caravella LLC-FZ and operated by Peninsular Maritime India Pvt Ltd, sailed from Ust-Luga bound for the Mediterranean. On 25 December 2024, in the Gulf of Finland, her port anchor came free and fell to the seabed.

The vessel continued. Her speed and engine revolutions dropped markedly. She dragged the anchor for roughly 90 kilometres.

At approximately 12.26 the anchor struck the EstLink 2 submarine power cable, co-owned by Fingrid Oyj and Elering AS. At 15.20 the Finnish authorities contacted the vessel and asked where her anchors were; according to the indictment the officers reported that both were up and secured. The passage continued. Between 18.04 and 18.44 four further telecommunications cables were damaged, including the C-Lion 1 Finland–Germany link. The chain was not recovered until around 18.50.

Charges of aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications, with alternative counts of aggravated criminal damage and negligent endangerment, were brought against the master, first officer and second officer. Civil claims exceeded EUR 105 million.

What the District Court actually decided — and what it did not

The Helsinki District Court dismissed the indictment on 3 October 2025, unanimously, and ordered the State to reimburse the defendants' costs. The dismissal was widely reported as a finding that Finland lacked jurisdiction over its own exclusive economic zone. That is not what the judgment says, and the distinction matters.

It found a Finnish consequence — for some counts

Under Chapter 1, section 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code an offence is committed both where the act was performed and where the statutory consequence appeared. The District Court held that:

the danger element of criminal mischief and aggravated criminal mischief (Chapter 34) was not made out in Finland at all; but
the very serious economic loss element of aggravated criminal damage (Chapter 35, section 2) and of aggravated interference with communications (Chapter 38, section 6) was, and materialised in Finland.

For those counts, therefore, the offence was committed in Finland as a matter of national law. The dismissal did not rest on the absence of a Finnish nexus.

The narrow construction of "energy supply"

The court read "energy supply" in Chapter 34 restrictively, as the availability and adequacy of electrical power, and invoked the principle of legality against any wider reading covering the electricity market or international transmission. On the evidence, the worst realistic case was a price rise and localised outages of a few hours; materialisation would have required simultaneous serious faults in cold, windless conditions, which the court considered relatively unlikely. Disruption to telecommunications was assessed as relatively minor. That the interconnector was transmitting from Finland to Estonia at the moment of failure was treated as reinforcing the conclusion.

This holding was never overturned. It comes back to life on remand.

The dispositive point: UNCLOS Article 97

Having found a Finnish consequence, the court turned to Chapter 1, section 15 of the Criminal Code, which gives way to binding treaty restrictions, and to UNCLOS:

Article 92 (exclusive flag-State jurisdiction) was held to address ships, not persons on board, and not to exclude concurrent jurisdiction.
Article 97(1) was held to be decisive. Penal proceedings arising from a collision "or any other incident of navigation" may be instituted only before the flag State or the State of nationality. Relying on the ILC's 1956 commentary — which gives cable damage as an example and on the Enrica Lexie award's requirement that the damage relate to the manoeuvring or movement of a ship, the court found the event to be an incident of navigation. The anchor had fallen because its securing arrangements failed; no deliberate use of the anchor as a cutting tool was alleged.
Article 113 was read, with the Proelss commentary and Finland's own Act on the Protection of Certain Underwater Cables, as evidence that jurisdiction over cable damage beyond the territorial sea is confined to the flag State.

The indictment and the civil claims fell away under Chapter 1, section 15.

What changed on appeal — the five findings that reversed the outcome

Leave for continued consideration was granted on 16 January 2026. The Helsinki Court of Appeal gave its decision on 27 August 2026. Its reasoning proceeds in five moves.

Finding 1 — Concurrent jurisdiction is the baseline

The court began from the territorial principle, which it treated as both a rule of Finnish law (Chapter 1, sections 1 and 10) and a generally recognised rule of international law, citing Enrica Lexie. The alleged consequences appeared in Finland; the offence was therefore committed in Finland. Because the vessel flew the Cook Islands flag, it was also committed in the Cook Islands (Enrica Lexie).

Article 92 governs the flag State's exclusivity. It does not determine whose criminal law applies where the consequence lands in another State. Both States therefore hold jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is parallel. Article 97 is the only provision that trims the parallelism which reframed the whole case as an exception to be established, not a rule to be presumed.

Finding 2 — "Incident" imports fortuity, and fortuity can be lost

This is the pivot of the judgment.

The Court of Appeal first disposed of a translation point: under Article 320 UNCLOS the Finnish text is not authentic, so the authentic English term "incident of navigation" governs, not the narrower Finnish rendering.

It then traced the provision's purpose. Article 97(1) was drafted to displace the position established by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus case, under which both flag States held criminal jurisdiction over crew after a collision — a position considered unsatisfactory for international shipping. The object was to shield navigational criminal liability from multi-forum exposure (Enrica Lexie). From paragraphs 649–656 of the same award, an incident of navigation requires an occurrence connected with the movement and steering of the ship, from which damage results.

The court then held, in terms worth quoting in substance:

Although "incident" is a broader concept than "accident", in this context it carries the requirement that the matter be an occurrence comparable to a collision a fortuity that is not intentional in relation to the consequence of that fortuity.

Applying that test, the court accepted that the sudden loss of the anchor and the damage associated with it were a fortuity, and so an incident of navigation. But it declined to freeze the characterisation at the moment of the casualty. Taking into account the crew's alleged conduct during and after the authorities' contact, and the continuation of the dragging in the pleaded circumstances for more than three hours, what occurred could no longer be regarded as a fortuity.

The counterfactual the court relied on is the sharpest sentence in the decision: had the vessel stopped when the authorities made contact and had the crew checked the anchors, at least the last four cables would have remained undamaged.

The ILC's 1956 example of cable damage as an incident of navigation did not displace that conclusion.

Finding 3 — Article 113 is a duty to criminalise, not a cap on jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal separated the two questions the District Court had merged. Article 113 obliges contracting States to make wilful or culpably negligent cable damage by their own flag vessels and their own nationals an offence. An obligation to legislate says nothing about the international jurisdiction of a court in a criminal matter. The scope of Finland's implementing statute was therefore irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue.

Finding 4 — Article 59 as an equitable forum-allocation rule

Having found parallel jurisdiction and no Article 97 bar, the court confronted an express positive conflict of jurisdiction between Finland and the Cook Islands and resolved it under Article 59 UNCLOS, on the basis of equity and in the light of all relevant circumstances, weighing the importance of the interests to the parties and to the international community as a whole.

Its conclusion: taking particular account of the extent of the criminal consequences caused in Finland, it is equitable that the charges be tried in Finland rather than in the Cook Islands.

This is the most exportable part of the decision. Article 59 is ordinarily read as a residual rule for rights not attributed in the exclusive economic zone. Here a national appellate court deploys it as a forum-allocation principle in a criminal case a move other coastal States facing flag-of-convenience cable casualties will read closely.

Finding 5 — The legality principle does not bite

The defence argued that Chapter 3, section 1 of the Criminal Code barred an expansive jurisdictional construction, and that change must come from treaty amendment rather than from case law. The court answered structurally: jurisdiction rests on international law and national provisions; Article 97 is an exception to that jurisdiction; holding an exception inapplicable does not enlarge the underlying jurisdiction. No legality problem arises.

Two collateral rulings practitioners should not skip

Cable owners have injured-party standing

The defence challenged the standing of Fingrid Oyj and Elering AS arguing that endangerment of energy supply is not directed at any single company, that Fingrid's property was not damaged in Finland, and that Elering is Estonian. The court held that an injured party is the holder of the legal interest directly infringed or endangered, and the sufferer of the damage. Ownership of EstLink 2 was undisputed. Where the endangerment landed, where the damage was located and where Elering is domiciled are questions for the merits of liability, not for standing. Both companies are injured parties.

The manager was heard, but was never a party

Peninsular Maritime India Pvt Ltd, which had signed the officers' employment contracts, sought its first-instance costs from the State EUR 680,951.05 as claimed on appeal, plus sums in US dollars, dirhams and rupees, and a further EUR 75,860 for the appeal itself. Under Chapter 3, section 1 and Chapter 7, section 5 of the Tort Liability Act an employer who has not been sued must be given an opportunity to be heard, but the party heard occupies only the position of a non-independent intervener; the judgment's res judicata does not extend to it. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the costs claim and rejected the manager's appeal.

The practical lesson for owners and managers is blunt: funding and coordinating the defence of your master and officers in a Finnish criminal case does not create a costs entitlement against the Finnish State. A separate civil action is the route.

Side by side

Issue	Helsinki District Court (3.10.2025)	Helsinki Court of Appeal (27.8.2026)
Territorial nexus	Economic-loss consequences materialised in Finland; danger consequence did not	Consequences appeared in Finland; offence committed in Finland
Art. 92 UNCLOS	Addresses ships, not persons; no bar	Same, and expressly grounds parallel Finnish/Cook Islands jurisdiction
Art. 97(1) UNCLOS	Incident of navigation; jurisdiction barred	Fortuity at the outset, but lost through the alleged post-contact conduct; not an incident of navigation
Temporal frame	Fixed at the moment the anchor was lost	Extends through the three-plus hours of continued dragging
Art. 113 UNCLOS	Supports a flag-State jurisdictional limit	Duty to criminalise only; jurisdictionally irrelevant
Art. 59 UNCLOS	Not reached	Applied to resolve a positive conflict of jurisdiction in Finland's favour
Legality principle	Bars extensive construction	Not engaged; disapplying an exception does not extend jurisdiction
Outcome	Indictment and civil claims dismissed; State pays defence costs	Judgment quashed; remitted to Helsinki District Court

Why this decision travels

It supplies a workable test where the treaty supplies none. UNCLOS never defines "incident of navigation". The Court of Appeal's answer an occurrence comparable to a collision, fortuitous and not intentional as to its consequence is short, quotable and capable of application in any coastal State's courts.

It makes the casualty a process, not a moment. The characterisation of an event under Article 97 is assessed across its duration. A crew's response to a casualty can remove the very protection the casualty created. For masters, officers, owners and P&I clubs, that relocates the risk from the mechanical failure to the bridge conduct that follows it.

It severs Article 113 from jurisdiction. Coastal States can no longer be met with the argument that the cable-protection article itself confines prosecution to the flag State.

It is a Baltic and North Sea problem, not a Finnish one. The same anchor-drag fact pattern has now recurred repeatedly across the Baltic. Every littoral State's prosecutors and every owner trading the region face the identical question, and this is the first reasoned appellate answer to it.

And it is not the end. The Court of Appeal decided jurisdiction and expressly declined to rule on guilt. The District Court's restrictive reading of "energy supply", its assessment of the probability of danger and its view of the telecommunications impact were never reviewed. On remand they remain live, alongside the intent question — the prosecution contends that the degree of intent grew as the act progressed, at latest into deliberate ignorance once the authorities had called.

What happens next

The Helsinki District Court must take the case up again once the appellate decision becomes final, or earlier with the parties' consent, and must also rule on the costs claimed in the Court of Appeal. The decision is subject to an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Finland. Given the novelty of the Article 97 and Article 59 reasoning, a leave application would be unsurprising.

A note on Finnish maritime exposure

Finland is a small jurisdiction with an outsized submarine cable, pipeline and interconnector density, a busy Gulf of Finland traffic separation scheme, and authorities that have now demonstrated they will board, detain, investigate and prosecute. Eagle S shows how quickly a routine passage becomes a criminal matter in which the master and officers are personally charged, the vessel is detained under port State control, and eight-figure civil claims are consolidated into the criminal proceedings.

LKOS Law Office Oy advises shipowners, managers, charterers, cargo interests, insurers and P&I correspondents on Finnish shipping, maritime and transport matters — casualty and cable-damage response, criminal exposure of masters and crew, port State control detentions, cargo and liability claims, sanctions questions on Baltic trades, and dispute resolution before the Finnish courts and in arbitration. If your file has a Finnish element, we are glad to be a second pair of eyes on it before it becomes a first-instance judgment.

Töölönkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki · office@lkoslaw.fi · +358 44 516 8648 · lkoslaw.fi

Frequently asked

Did the Court of Appeal convict anyone?

No. It decided jurisdiction only and expressly declined to take a position on guilt. The case returns to the Helsinki District Court.

What is an “incident of navigation” under Article 97(1) UNCLOS after Eagle S?

An occurrence connected with the movement and steering of a ship, from which damage results, and which is comparable to a collision — that is, a fortuity that is not intentional in relation to its consequence.

Can a casualty stop being an incident of navigation?

On the Helsinki Court of Appeal’s reasoning, yes. The anchor’s loss was a fortuity; the alleged decision to continue dragging for over three hours after the authorities’ inquiry meant the event as a whole was no longer fortuitous.

Does Article 113 UNCLOS limit prosecution to the flag State?

The Court of Appeal held that it does not. Article 113 obliges States to criminalise cable damage; it does not allocate criminal jurisdiction between courts.

Is the decision final?

No. It is subject to an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Finland.

Disclaimer

This article is a summary of publicly available court decisions prepared for general information. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion, it does not create a lawyer–client relationship, and it must not be relied upon in any actual or contemplated matter. The proceedings described are ongoing and no finding of guilt has been made against any person. Where the Finnish-language decision and this English summary differ, the original prevails. For advice on a specific matter, please contact us.

Authors: Oscari Seppälä, Specialist Partner, LKOS Law Office Oy, and Liene Krumina, Managing Partner, LKOS Law Office Oy.

Sources: Helsinki District Court, judgment of 3 October 2025 in case R 706/2025/12270 (ruling no. 1035 6447), English translation circulated by the Council of the European Union as document WK 14133/2025 INIT; Helsinki Court of Appeal, decision of 27 August 2026 in case R 16/2025/2572 (ruling no. 1051 2110).

AML Regulation 10.7.2027 | How the New EU Regulation Changes Corporate Obligations

Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:48:00 +0000

The EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) will replace most of Finland's national Anti-Money Laundering Act on July 10, 2027. Although Government Proposal HE 105/2026 vp remains under parliamentary review, the text of the EU Regulation is finalised and the changes extend even to companies that have never been obliged entities. Key beneficial ownership obligations will take effect as early as July 10, 2026.

Key Highlights

Regulation shifts to a Regulation. The directly applicable EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) will replace most of the national Anti-Money Laundering Act on July 10, 2027.
Beneficial ownership threshold lowered. The current threshold of more than 25% changes to at least 25%.
Cash limit applies to all businesses. Cash payments exceeding 10,000 euros will be prohibited regardless of obliged entity status.
Responsibility designated to management. Obliged entities must appoint a member of management responsible for compliance.
Sanctions tightened. In the financial sector, penalties can reach up to 10 million euros or 10% of annual turnover, and the limitation period extends from 5 years to 10 years.
Timeline proceeds in phases. National adaptations for beneficial ownership registers will take effect by July 10, 2026, and the EU AML Regulation will fully apply from July 10, 2027.

Government Proposal HE 105/2026 vp was submitted to Parliament on June 4, 2026, and is currently under committee review. The acts have not been enacted, and their content may still change. However, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation is already in force.

What is Changing and When?

In the background is a legislative package replacing the entirety of EU AML regulation: the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6), the AMLA Regulation establishing a new supervisory authority, and amendments to the Financial Information Directive.

In Finland, the reform is executed by enacting an entirely new Anti-Money Laundering Act that repeals the existing one. Concurrently, over 30 other acts will be amended. National discretion has been used sparingly, as the primary obligations stem directly from the EU Regulation.

The implementation schedule proceeds in four main phases:

July 10, 2026 – Implementation deadline for beneficial ownership register provisions under AMLD6. Finland will implement necessary national adjustments to the Trade Register Act and registration procedures by this date.
July 10, 2027 – Full application of the EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) begins, including the new beneficial ownership threshold of at least 25% (Art. 52). The new national Anti-Money Laundering Act and related legislation enter into force simultaneously.
January 1, 2028 – The Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) assumes direct supervision of up to 40 high-risk financial institutions.
July 10, 2029 – Rules governing football agents and professional football clubs enter into force.

Why the Act is Being Replaced by a Regulation – and What It Means in Practice

Until now, AML regulation relied on directives transposed into national legislation. Going forward, substantive requirements—customer due diligence, internal policies, risk assessments, and reporting obligations—will be set out in a directly applicable EU Regulation.

The new national Anti-Money Laundering Act will remain to govern areas left to national discretion: the national risk assessment, beneficial ownership registers, supervisory powers, and administrative sanctions. Several familiar provisions in sectoral laws will be repealed—such as customer due diligence provisions in the Payment Institutions Act, Investment Services Act, and Act on the Book-Entry System.

The practical consequence is clear: references to national AML legislation in internal company policies will mostly point to repealed provisions after July 10, 2027. Furthermore, the Regulation will be interpreted through EU law rather than national legislative history, with significant technical detail determined by AMLA’s technical standards and guidelines throughout 2026–2027—some arriving after application has already begun. Compliance frameworks must therefore be designed as continuously evolving processes rather than one-off projects.

Who Will Be an Obliged Entity Going Forward?

The scope of obliged entities will be governed directly by the EU AML Regulation, bringing changes in both directions.

Brought into scope: Crowdfunding service providers and intermediaries, certain mortgage and consumer credit intermediaries, traders in high-value goods, precious metals, gems, and cultural goods, non-financial mixed holding companies, intermediaries involved in investor residence schemes, and additional real estate professionals—including rental transactions where monthly rent equals or exceeds 10,000 euros.

Removed from scope: General traders in goods due to the new general cash threshold, as well as non-life insurance companies (34 entities in Finland) and employment pension insurance companies (4 entities). In the insurance sector, scope will be restricted strictly to life insurance and investment-related activities. While administrative burdens for non-life insurers are estimated to decrease by approximately 0.7 million euros annually, customer identification and sanctions compliance will remain largely unchanged in practice.

Group structures should review these boundaries carefully, as a single corporate group may contain entities both added to and removed from the scope.

Beneficial Owners: The 25% Threshold Lowers

This change impacts ordinary Finnish companies most broadly, including those that are not obliged entities themselves.

Under the 4th AML Directive, ownership-based beneficial ownership required an interest of more than 25%. Under Article 52 of the AML Regulation, the threshold shifts to at least 25% of shares, voting rights, or other ownership interests, including rights to profits or liquidation proceeds. An exact 25% stake will therefore constitute beneficial ownership. In indirect structures, ownership percentages are calculated by multiplying chain interests and aggregating distinct chains.

Additionally, the European Commission may establish a lower threshold of up to 15% for high-risk sectors via delegated acts, introducing the possibility of parallel threshold standards.

The required registration data is also expanding: entities must collect full names, date and place of birth, residential address, country of residence, citizenship, identity document number, personal identification number (if applicable), and descriptions of the source of information for all beneficial owners.

Finland will establish a dedicated beneficial ownership register maintained by the Patent and Registration Office (PRH). Access will be granted to authorities, obliged entities for customer due diligence, and parties demonstrating a legitimate interest (such as journalists and non-governmental organizations). Statutory assumptions aimed at reducing administrative burden will remain for associations, foundations, religious communities, and housing companies.

Obliged entities will be legally required to report discrepancies between registered information and their own due diligence findings. Inaccurate beneficial ownership records will not remain mere administrative oversights—they will trigger inquiries and delay banking relationships or financing transactions. Shareholder agreements, option arrangements, voting rights differentials, and holding structures should be reviewed against the new threshold well before registration changes and the Regulation take effect.

Cash Payments Exceeding 10,000 Euros Prohibited for All Businesses

Article 80 of the AML Regulation prohibits cash payments exceeding 10,000 euros for goods and services. The restriction applies universally to all commercial sellers and service providers—not just obliged entities—and operates in both directions: businesses may neither accept nor make cash payments exceeding this amount. Linked transactions are aggregated, preventing circumvention through installment splitting.

Transactions between private individuals acting in a non-professional capacity remain exempt, as do certain payments and deposits made at credit institution premises. Member States were permitted to introduce lower national limits, but Finland has not proposed a lower cap.

This is the single provision directly affecting virtually every business regardless of sector. Cash handling procedures, commercial terms, and point-of-sale configurations should be reviewed immediately—particularly in automotive sales, machinery, construction, and luxury goods trade.

Who Holds Responsibility? Designation of a Compliance Executive

The AML Regulation explicitly elevates compliance responsibility to senior management level.

Obliged entities must designate a member of the management body responsible for ensuring compliance. In Finland, the Government Proposal clarifies that this refers to executive management—the Managing Director and executives directly reporting to senior leadership (a definition the proposal acknowledges as open to interpretation).

The compliance officer prepares the entity-wide risk assessment, but senior management must formally approve it. The risk assessment must be kept up to date and provided to supervisory authorities upon request. Introducing new products, distribution channels, technologies, or customer categories requires a dedicated risk assessment prior to launch.

Outsourcing functions remains permissible provided advance notification is given to supervisors, though full regulatory responsibility stays with the obliged entity. However, outsourcing is strictly prohibited for approving risk assessments, adopting internal policies, confirming customer risk profiles, deciding on business relationship onboardings, and submitting suspicious activity reports to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

Boards and executive management must be capable of demonstrating formal review and approval of the organization's risk profile. This is primarily a documentation challenge: formal board minutes, decision templates, and regular monitoring reports should be prepared well in advance.

What Are the Costs of Non-Compliance?

Administrative sanctions will continue to include administrative fines, penalty fees, periodic penalty payments, and public warnings, but maximum fine caps are increasing significantly.

Financial sanctions must equal at least twice the economic benefit derived from the breach or at least 1,000,000 euros, whichever is higher.
For credit and financial institutions, maximum penalties for legal persons reach at least 10,000,000 euros or 10% of annual global turnover—doubling the previous statutory euro-denominated ceiling. For natural persons, sanctions can reach up to 5,000,000 euros.
The limitation period for continuing breaches extends from 5 years to 10 years. FATF had repeatedly identified Finland’s 5-year limit as a regulatory weakness.

A longer limitation period combined with higher financial penalties fundamentally shifts liability risks in M&A transactions: regulatory due diligence will now need to review AML compliance histories extending back ten years, impacting representations, warranties, and indemnity structures.

Actionable Steps for Businesses

Although the national Government Proposal remains under parliamentary review, the text of the EU Regulation is finalized. Preparations should not be delayed.

Determine whether your company or group entities fall within the scope of obliged entities under the new definitions.
Re-run beneficial ownership calculations using the "at least 25%" threshold, incorporating indirect chains.
Ensure current Trade Register records reflect accurate beneficial ownership ahead of the July 10, 2026 deadline.
Designate a compliance officer within executive management and formalize roles within governance frameworks.
Update corporate risk assessments and submit them to executive management for formal approval.
Review existing outsourcing agreements against new statutory restrictions.
Adjust cash intake policies and commercial contract terms to comply with the 10,000 euro limit.
Update internal policies, replacing references to national acts with the corresponding EU Regulation provisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the new Anti-Money Laundering Act already in force?

No. Government Proposal HE 105/2026 vp was submitted to Parliament on June 4, 2026, and is undergoing committee review. The national acts are not yet passed. However, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation is already enacted and will apply directly from July 10, 2027, regardless of national legislative timelines.

When does the new AML framework take effect?

The majority of provisions and the direct application of the EU AML Regulation begin on July 10, 2027. National provisions concerning beneficial ownership registers take effect earlier, on July 10, 2026. Rules targeting football agents and professional football clubs will apply from July 10, 2029.

Our business is not an obliged entity. Are we affected?

Yes, in two main ways. The ban on cash payments exceeding 10,000 euros applies to all commercial sellers of goods and services. Furthermore, general corporate obligations regarding beneficial ownership transparency affect corporate entities broadly, and banks or obliged counterparties will require this data under stricter rules.

Is the 25% beneficial ownership threshold changing?

Yes. The previous threshold required owning more than 25%, whereas the new threshold is set at at least 25%. An exact 25% holding will now trigger beneficial ownership status. Additionally, the European Commission may lower this to 15% in high-risk sectors.

Can a business accept a cash payment exceeding 10,000 euros?

No. The prohibition covers both accepting and making cash payments exceeding 10,000 euros for commercial goods and services, including linked payments. Transactions between private individuals acting outside a business context are excluded.

Can AML compliance functions be outsourced?

Most operational tasks can be outsourced following prior notice to supervisory authorities, though legal responsibility remains entirely with the obliged entity. However, key governance duties—such as approving risk assessments, adopting internal policies, approving customer risk profiles, onboarding decisions, and submitting suspicious activity reports—cannot be outsourced.

Are non-life insurers excluded from AML scope?

Under the proposed national draft, non-life insurance companies are removed from the scope of obliged entities under the national act because mandatory EU scope is limited to life and investment-related insurance. However, general customer identification and sanctions compliance standards continue to apply in practice.

What happens if our registered beneficial ownership data is inaccurate?

Obliged entities are legally required to report discrepancies between register records and their own findings to the authorities. Incorrect records can result in administrative sanctions and practical disruptions, such as delayed banking onboarding or blocked financial transactions.

How LKOS Law Office Can Assist

We assist corporations with regulatory scope assessments, beneficial ownership reviews, drafting risk assessments and compliance policies, and managing communications with supervisory authorities—ranging from corporate structure reviews to governance documentation and outsourcing terms.

Learn more about our practice and legal services at Corporate Law & Business Counsel and Our Services.

Read this article in Finnish: Rahanpesulaki 10.7.2027 – näin uusi EU-sääntely muuttaa yritysten velvoitteet.

Need Assistance with AML Compliance?

Our experienced legal specialists assist companies with regulatory transitions and compliance requirements:

Liene Krumina | Managing Partner
Oscari Seppälä | Specialist Partner

Contact our specialists or schedule a consultation via LKOS Law Office Contact Page.

This article was prepared based on information available as of August 21, 2026. It provides a general legal overview of pending regulatory changes and does not constitute formal legal advice for specific matters.

When Information Is Free, Clients Buy Responsibility: AI, Value Creation in Business Law, and LKOS Law Office Leading the Shift

Thu, 20 Aug 2026 07:58:00 +0000

Why Should You Read This Article?

Generative artificial intelligence and Large Language Models (LLMs) are fundamentally restructuring the legal sector. As AI lowers the cost of information retrieval and document drafting to near zero, the core mechanism of value creation in business law is undergoing a seismic shift. In an era of automated knowledge, value moves away from raw data production toward risk management, strategic judgment, and absolute accountability.

Key takeaways

Information is no longer the product. Statutes, case law and standard clauses are now fast and cheap for anyone to reach, so scarcity of information has stopped being a basis for pricing legal work.
AI predicts; it does not decide. When the cost of prediction collapses, the value of its complement — judgment — rises.
Confident output is not verified output. Legal answers from general-purpose models frequently cite sources that do not exist, and legal-specific retrieval tools reduce but do not remove the problem.
What the client actually buys is responsibility. Agency, professional liability, indemnity cover and privilege cannot be delegated to a machine.
Pricing follows. Fixed-fee and value-based models replace time-based billing where technology has removed the hours.

When legal knowledge commoditises: the rise of AI and the new value equation

The offering of corporate legal services is going through the fastest transformation in its history. Large language models, specialised legal search and analysis tools, and agentic AI systems can draft contracts, search regulations and analyse document masses in seconds.

Previously, revenue for law firms and commercial legal practices was largely based on information scarcity and the billable hours spent retrieving it. Today, statutory texts, case law and standard contract clauses are quickly and affordably accessible to everyone.

Naturally, this has raised a critical question among corporate management: why invest in an expert commercial lawyer, advocate or licensed legal counsel when AI provides an instant answer?

The answer comes down to a single insight. As information becomes commoditised and its price collapses, the value of verified judgment, strategic agency and real responsibility increases. The client no longer pays merely for an answer or a document — the client buys certainty, protection and results.

1. Free information is not reliable information

Generative AI models produce linguistically convincing text, but their main stumbling block remains generating incorrect or invented information — so-called hallucinations. Studies of general-purpose language models have found incorrect sources in legal queries in the large majority of cases. Even where advanced professional tools are anchored in legal corpora through retrieval-augmented generation, a material share of answers still contains errors or fabricated citations.

For a layperson or corporate manager this presents an unsustainable challenge: the AI's response looks flawless, but its accuracy cannot be verified without the deep expertise the user was trying to avoid paying for.

In economics, legal services are classified as credence goods. It is impossible for a client to fully evaluate the quality of a service or advice even after consuming it. AI does not eliminate this dynamic — it deepens it. When the volume of information explodes, it becomes unreliable without human validation.

2. AI produces predictions; the lawyer delivers judgment and responsibility

AI researchers and economists — Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb among them — have shown that AI is fundamentally a prediction machine: it cheapens the cost of estimating what is likely to follow from data. As economic theory teaches, when the price of a factor of production collapses, the value of its complement rises.

The most critical complement to prediction is judgment:

AI can predict which contract clause is common in the market.
A lawyer decides, through judgment, whether accepting that clause makes sense for this deal, for this board, and in this negotiation.

The new equation of value creation

In commercial law, value added will in future consist of five elements, with AI serving as an efficiency multiplier:

Judgment under uncertainty: weighing risks, alternatives and client goals.
Agency and representation: the authority and capability to perform binding legal acts on another's behalf — negotiations, closing, procedural actions.
Bearing responsibility: a signature backed by professional ethics, oversight, qualification and statutory professional indemnity insurance.
Relational and contextual capital: tacit knowledge of the client's business, industry and people, which exists in no database.
Legitimacy and legal professional privilege: an independent position and statutory duty of confidentiality creating a safe space for strategic thinking — a protection no chatbot can offer.

When information is free, the client buys responsibility, not an answer. The lawyer's product is not a document but the assurance that the matter progresses and someone stands behind the outcome.

3. How LKOS Law Office has prepared for the change

We recognise this market transformation and have acted on it. We do not view technology as a threat but as a tool that frees us from routine work, so we can concentrate where we deliver the most value: strategic advisory, risk management and business enablement.

We use the latest tools for efficiency. Routine information retrieval, preliminary document review and skeleton drafting are handled quickly through technology, saving our clients time and cost.
We focus on verification. We do not trust technological output blindly. Every document, advice and solution passes through the critical judgment of an experienced expert.
We price flexibly and predictably. In the era of AI, rigid hourly billing does not always serve the client. We offer clear value-based and fixed-fee packages as well as recurring service models, where you pay for the benefit and certainty obtained rather than for time alone.

4. Our expertise across key practice areas

LKOS Law Office is a solution-driven, business-oriented commercial law firm. We work in close partnership with our clients across their most critical industries and legal fields, aiming to be the first call when they face demanding legal questions, significant corporate transactions or critical disputes.

Mergers and acquisitions

In an acquisition, AI can draft basic transaction clauses, but it cannot evaluate the actual risk profile of the deal. We act as transaction cost engineers: structuring purchase price mechanisms, representation and warranty terms and exit conditions to bridge distrust between parties and bring the deal safely to completion. See Mergers and acquisitions.

Contract law and proactive law

A Finnish competitive edge lies in the tradition of proactive contracting: a contract is not a straitjacket crafted for litigation but a tool for business management and collaboration. While a machine generates text, an LKOS lawyer shapes relationships, processes and risk allocations before problems arise. See Contracts law.

Transport, logistics and international trade

Logistics and transport law require deep industry knowledge, mastery of international conventions and swift responsiveness in contractual and liability matters. We combine sector expertise and an international network with fast, direct decision-making. See Transport, maritime and logistics law.

Employment law and organisational change

Employment law is legal work between people, where human understanding, tactics and negotiation skills decide outcomes. We support management through organisational change, restructuring and complex personnel matters, keeping the company compliant and operations running. See Employment law.

Dispute resolution and strategic advisory

Proceedings and demanding negotiations always take place before human audiences — a judge, a mediator, a board, opposing counsel. Rhetoric, credibility, argumentation and the ability to convey commitment are human strengths no machine replaces. Court representation and structuring out-of-court settlements form the core of our practice. See Dispute resolution and arbitration.

5. A proven partner: our client stories

Technology changes tools, but trust is still earned through actions and results. Our long-term client relationships and the range of our assignments show that clients rely on us both in everyday contract management and in business-critical situations.

Read our client stories and references.

Frequently asked questions

Can AI replace a business lawyer?

No. AI is a prediction machine: it lowers the cost of estimating what is likely to follow from data. It cannot exercise judgment under uncertainty, cannot act as your agent in binding legal acts such as negotiations, closing or procedural steps, and cannot carry professional responsibility. Those three things — judgment, agency and accountability — are what a client actually buys.

How reliable is AI for legal questions?

Not reliable enough to act on unverified. General-purpose language models have been found to produce incorrect sources in legal queries in a high proportion of cases, and even professional tools anchored in legal corpora through retrieval-augmented generation still return a material share of errors and fabricated citations. The difficulty is that the output reads as flawless: its accuracy cannot be assessed without the expertise the user was trying to replace.

If legal information is free, why pay for legal advice?

Because legal services are credence goods: a client cannot fully evaluate the quality of the advice even after receiving it. AI does not remove that problem, it deepens it, because the volume of plausible-looking information rises while its reliability does not. The client is not paying for an answer or a document but for certainty, protection and a result someone stands behind.

What is the new value equation in commercial law?

Five elements, with AI acting as an efficiency multiplier rather than a substitute: judgment under uncertainty; agency and representation, meaning the authority to perform binding legal acts on another's behalf; bearing responsibility, backed by professional ethics, oversight, qualification and professional indemnity insurance; relational and contextual capital about the client's business and people that exists in no database; and legitimacy with legal professional privilege, an independent position and statutory confidentiality that no chatbot can offer.

How does LKOS Law Office use AI in its own work?

As a tool, not an oracle. Routine information retrieval, preliminary document review and skeleton drafting are handled quickly through technology, which saves client time and cost. Nothing produced that way is trusted blindly: every document, advice and solution passes through the critical judgment of an experienced lawyer before it reaches a client.

Does AI change how legal fees are charged?

Yes. Rigid hourly billing does not always serve the client when the underlying work takes less time. LKOS Law Office offers clear value-based and fixed-fee packages as well as recurring service models, so the client pays for the benefit and the certainty obtained rather than for time alone.

Summary: choose a partner who mastered the change

The AI disruption divides the industry into two camps: those who compete with machines over information retrieval, and those who harness technology to deliver deeper expertise, strategic insight and real accountability.

LKOS Law Office belongs to the latter. When your business faces demanding contract negotiations, corporate transactions or strategic risk decisions, do not settle for a computer-generated prediction.

Would you like to discuss your company's contract and legal matters in the AI era? Get in touch with our experts, or see how to reach us.

Lue tämä artikkeli suomeksi: Kun tieto on ilmaista, asiakas ostaa vastuun.

Business Restraining Order in Finland: Court-Ordered Access Bans for Retail Premises

Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:18:00 +0000

Finland is set to introduce a wholly new instrument: a court-ordered ban preventing a named individual from entering retail premises. In the retail sector it has been called the business restraining order.

The draft Government proposal was open for comments from 4 June to 17 July 2026, and more than 45 organisations filed statements. The proposal is not uncontroversial: the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, among others, has questioned whether the rules are drafted precisely enough and whether the scope has been drawn correctly. This article sets out what the proposal contains, what the consultation round revealed, and what businesses operating retail premises in Finland should be doing before the law enters into force.

Key points

New statute: Act on Court-Ordered Access Bans (laki tuomioistuimen määräämästä pääsykiellosta), project OM159:00/2023.
Applicant: the trader; the ban would be imposed by a court.
Target premises: a shop open to the public, plus an immediate vicinity specified in the court's decision. Pharmacies are excluded.
Duration: a maximum of one year.
Sanction: breaching the ban would carry a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.
Enforcement: the police.
Timetable: Government proposal to Parliament in autumn 2026; entry into force 1 June 2027.

What is the "business restraining order"?

The Finnish Government Programme committed to introducing what has been called a yrityslähestymiskielto, literally a "business restraining order". The drafters have chosen to implement it through a separate statute rather than by extending the existing Act on Restraining Orders, and the choice is well founded. A restraining order under the existing Act protects an identified natural person from another person's contact. The instrument now proposed protects a place — and, through that place, the staff and customers present in it.

According to the Ministry of Justice press release of 3 June 2026, the aim is to strengthen the safety of employees and customers by intervening in serious and repeated situations involving threats and violence. The Minister of Justice, Leena Meri, described the proposal as follows (unofficial translation):

This is a new legal instrument for addressing disruptive behaviour in shops. The retail sector has to be a safe workplace for its staff.

The project has been under way since August 2024 and runs until 31 March 2027. A separate monitoring group was appointed on 2 June 2025 to oversee implementation.

On what grounds could an access ban be imposed?

The ban would be based on the person's earlier conduct and would operate as a preventive measure. Under the draft, an access ban could be imposed in respect of a shop available to the public in order to prevent an offence against life, health or liberty, the threat of such an offence, or other serious and repeated harassment (unofficial translation).

The threshold therefore operates on two levels. A single serious offence or a credible threat of one may suffice; alternatively, other harassment qualifies if it is both serious and repeated. An isolated shoplifting incident or a one-off argument at the till would not ordinarily meet the test. In practice, a successful application will require a documented pattern of conduct.

A ban could also be imposed on a minor, but this would call for particular consideration in order to safeguard the child's fundamental rights.

Content, geographic reach and duration

A person subject to the ban would have no right to enter the shop "or its immediate vicinity", as further specified in the decision on the matter (unofficial translation). The geographic reach would thus be determined case by case in the court's decision rather than fixed in the statute itself.

The ban could be imposed for a maximum of one year. This is a significant difference compared with an entry ban imposed by the trader itself, which under the draft could remain in force indefinitely.

Pharmacies are expressly excluded from the scope. The exclusion relates to access to medicines and healthcare services: an access ban must not result in a person being left without necessary medication.

Court procedure and the role of the police

The court would impose the ban on the application of the trader. Proceedings would therefore be commenced by the applicant rather than by a public authority. The draft contains provisions on, among other things, the expeditious handling of the matter and on the court fee, and the Act on Court Fees would be amended accordingly.

Enforcement would rest with the police. To that end, the Police Act and the Act on the Processing of Personal Data in Police Matters would be amended so that information on the ban can be recorded and used in enforcement. The Private Security Services Act would also be clarified as regards the powers of security guards and stewards.

Relationship to the trader's own entry ban — amendment of the Criminal Code

The proposal would not remove a trader's existing right to impose an entry ban on a disruptive individual. On the contrary: Chapter 24, Section 3 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises julkisrauhan rikkominen (invasion of public premises), would be clarified by expressly adding to the definition of the offence the act of entering premises protected by that provision contrary to a ban imposed on the person (unofficial translation). The amendment would resolve the current uncertainty as to whether breaching a trader-imposed entry ban is punishable at all.

In practice, a two-tier system would emerge:

Trader-imposed entry ban compared with a court-ordered access ban under the draft
	Trader-imposed entry ban	Court-ordered access ban
Who imposes it	The trader itself	A court, on application
Duration	Indefinite	Maximum 1 year
Breach assessed as	Invasion of public premises (CC 24:3)	Breach of an access ban
Maximum penalty	Imprisonment up to 6 months	Imprisonment up to 1 year
Enforcement	The business itself, security guards	The police
Cost to the business	No official fee	Court fee and litigation costs

Because the two instruments would exist side by side, court proceedings will normally be worth pursuing only once the lighter measure has proved insufficient. This is also one of the contested questions in the consultation feedback.

Consultation feedback: the Parliamentary Ombudsman on precision and scope

The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman issued its statement on 17 July 2026. It welcomes the clarification of the powers of the police, security guards and stewards to restrict access, an area where the present legal position is unclear. On substance, however, the statement is critical. Its principal observations are:

The added value is not established. Existing law already allows a trader to impose an entry ban, and breaching it is punishable as invasion of public premises. The draft does not adequately explain what court proceedings would add.
The scope is narrow and the boundary unclear. The rules would cover shops only, even though comparable problems arise in restaurants, shopping centres and other premises open to the public. Distinguishing a "shop" from other commercial space remains open to interpretation.
"Immediate vicinity" without statutory criteria. If the geographic reach is left entirely to judicial discretion, the person subject to the ban cannot readily foresee where movement is prohibited. That is problematic under the requirement that restrictions on fundamental rights be precise and clearly delimited.
Procedural weaknesses. The formulation "as the circumstances require" offers weaker guarantees of expeditious handling than the existing rules on urgent matters. The proposed wording on evidence also sits uneasily with the rules of evidence in the Code of Judicial Procedure.
No retention periods for personal data. The draft proposes no express provisions on how long sensitive police data may be retained, which is problematic under the constitutional requirements on the protection of personal data.

By way of remedy, the statement proposes harmonising the terminology between Sections 3, 6 and 8 of the proposed Act, writing criteria governing geographic reach into the statute, adding an express obligation to erase data, and considering whether a procedural model better suited to the resolution of civil disputes would be more appropriate.

Why is this being proposed? The retail crime figures

The figures cited in the draft illustrate the scale of the problem in the Finnish retail sector:

56% of retail outlets had been the victim of theft offences.
17% of outlets had experienced violence or threats directed at an employee — of those acts, 90% were threats and 10% assaults.
6% of outlets had experienced repeated harassment or stalking directed at an employee.
2% of outlets had been subject to a robbery or attempted robbery.

The Finnish Commerce Federation has supported the proposal. Its leading specialist, Terhi Kuljukka-Rabb, has said that the bill responds to needs the retail sector has raised for a long time.

Timetable and what businesses should do now

The consultation round closed on 17 July 2026. The Government proposal is due to be submitted to Parliament in autumn 2026, and the proposed acts are intended to enter into force on 1 June 2027. The content may still change both in continued preparation and during the parliamentary process. One stage is worth watching in particular: in Finland, the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament reviews bills for constitutional compatibility before they are passed, and its assessment of the ban's geographic reach and of the personal data provisions may well reshape the final text.

Traders should prepare as follows:

Build the documentation practice now. A successful application will require evidence of repeated and serious conduct. Incident reports, crime report numbers, camera footage retention periods and staff records need to be brought into a systematic form.
Check the lawfulness of your recordings and records. Documentation means processing personal data. The legal basis, retention periods and information obligations should be reviewed before material is collected with an application in mind.
Clarify your current entry ban practice. Once the Criminal Code provision is amended, how a ban is given and whether it can be evidenced will matter more than before. An oral ban with no record is a weak starting point.
Review your security service contracts. The changes to the powers of security guards and stewards affect what can and should be required of a service provider under the contract.
Assess the cost of the procedure. Court proceedings are heavier and chargeable compared with an entry ban. It is worth defining in advance the threshold at which an application will be made.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Finnish "business restraining order"?

It is the colloquial name for a Government Programme commitment that would be implemented through a new Act on Court-Ordered Access Bans. It is not an extension of the existing Act on Restraining Orders, but a separate instrument allowing a trader to apply to a court for an order preventing a named individual from entering a shop.

How long could an access ban last?

A maximum of one year. An entry ban imposed by the trader itself could, by contrast, remain in force indefinitely.

Which premises could an access ban cover?

A shop available to the public, together with an immediate vicinity specified in the court's decision. Pharmacies are excluded. Restaurants and shopping centres do not fall within the scope of the draft.

What is the penalty for breaching an access ban?

A fine or imprisonment for up to one year. Breaching a trader-imposed entry ban would be assessed as invasion of public premises, for which the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment.

Would the new law remove the trader's right to impose its own entry ban?

No. A trader would in principle retain the right to impose an entry ban itself. The Criminal Code provision on invasion of public premises would be clarified so that entering contrary to such a ban is expressly punishable.

When would the law enter into force?

The Government proposal is due in autumn 2026 and the acts would enter into force on 1 June 2027.

Can an access ban be imposed on a minor?

Under the draft yes, but it would require particular consideration in order to safeguard the child's fundamental rights.

How LKOS Law Office can help

We advise traders and holders of business premises on matters including:

drafting documentation practices and internal guidance for incidents
procedures and template wording for imposing entry bans
data protection assessments for camera surveillance and incident records
review of security and guarding service contracts
preparing access ban applications and representation before the courts once the Act is in force
assessment of occupational safety obligations in roles exposed to the threat of violence
preparing consultation statements and advocacy submissions in legislative projects

We work in English, Finnish and Latvian. See Employment law, Contracts law and Dispute resolution and arbitration, or contact us.

Lue tämä artikkeli suomeksi: Yrityslähestymiskielto: pääsykielto myymälään.

Sources

Ministry of Justice: Project Yrityslähestymiskielto, OM159:00/2023 (VN/26860/2023)
Ministry of Justice, 3 June 2026: Draft act on the business restraining order out for comments
Request for statements and draft Government proposal, 4 June 2026
Statement of the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, 17 July 2026

Quotations from Finnish legislative material and from the Minister of Justice are our own unofficial translations; the Finnish text governs. This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on material available on 18 August 2026 and concerns a legislative project whose content may change in continued preparation and during the parliamentary process. We accept no liability for action taken on the basis of this article.

LKOS Law Office Oy
Töölönkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
office@lkoslaw.fi · Business ID 2666655-6

EU Customs Duty 1 July 2026: €3 Fee on Parcels Under €150 Now in Force – What Sellers and Importers Need to Know

Sat, 04 Jul 2026 04:48:00 +0000

Published: 4 July 2026 | LKOS Law Office Oy

Lue tämä artikkeli suomeksi

The EU's new fixed €3 customs duty on low-value consignments took effect on 1 July 2026. Every goods item in a shipment valued at €150 or less now attracts the fee – including shipments from sellers registered under the Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS), which previously entered the EU duty-free. For e-commerce sellers, marketplaces, freight forwarders and importers, the change is no longer something to prepare for: it is live, and it directly affects pricing, customs declarations and contractual liability.

This article is a practical follow-up to our earlier updates in the EU customs reform series, including EU Customs Reform Update: €3 duty for parcels under €150 from 1 July 2026 (IOSS).

What changed on 1 July 2026?

Until the end of June 2026, consignments valued at €150 or less were in practice exempt from customs duty under the de minimis rule. As of 1 July 2026, that exemption no longer operates in the same way: a fixed €3 customs duty is charged on every goods item in consignments valued at up to €150.

The duty is based on Council Regulation (EU) 2026/382 and forms part of the wider EU customs reform. It is a transitional measure, applied until the EU Customs Data Hub enables product-specific duty calculation for low-value consignments as well (expected from 2028 onwards).

Import VAT is unaffected: it continues to be levied as before, in addition to the new duty.

How the €3 duty is calculated – the goods item is decisive

The fee is not charged per parcel but per goods item in the customs declaration. A goods item covers products that share the same commodity code (tariff heading) and the same country of origin.

In practice:

One goods item = €3. Two identical shirts from China form a single goods item, and the duty is €3.

Different products = several goods items. A shirt and a pair of socks in the same shipment are declared as separate goods items, and the total duty is €6. Three different products mean €9, and so on.

Declaration practice matters commercially. Identical products can, for technical reasons, be declared as separate goods items – in which case the duty is charged on each. How a marketplace, seller or forwarder structures its declarations therefore feeds directly into landed cost. For businesses shipping at volume, reviewing and optimising goods item structures is one of the most immediate savings opportunities the new regime creates.

Transitional rule: orders placed in June, arriving in July

The decisive moment is neither the order date, the shipping date nor the arrival date, but the date the customs declaration is accepted:

If the declaration was accepted on or before 30 June 2026, no duty is charged – even if clearance is completed and the parcel released in July.
If the declaration is accepted on or after 1 July 2026, the €3 duty applies.

A declaration counts as accepted once it has been assigned an MRN reference number (in Finland, beginning 26FI in 2026). The clearance does not need to be finalised – successful lodging with Customs is sufficient.

Who bears the cost – seller, marketplace or buyer?

The answer depends on the seller's IOSS status:

Seller registered under IOSS: the seller or its intermediary lodges the declaration and pays both the duty and import VAT. From 1 July 2026, the buyer can no longer self-clear such a shipment. Commercially, the cost flows into the product price or appears as a separate charge at checkout – major platforms have already adjusted their pricing.

Seller not registered under IOSS: the buyer clears the parcel (or the carrier does so on the buyer's behalf) and pays the duty and import VAT at clearance.

For businesses, the allocation of this cost is ultimately a matter of contract and delivery model: who acts as importer of record, which Incoterms rule applies, and how the cost is built into pricing. The new duty is small per item, but across high-volume flows an unclear allocation quickly shows up in margins, customer disputes and chargebacks. Seller agreements, marketplace terms and freight forwarding contracts should state expressly who bears the duty and who is responsible for the declaration structure. We advise on these questions as part of our customs services.

Shipments above €150

Nothing changed. Consignments valued above €150 continue to attract duty according to the applicable tariff heading, plus import VAT, exactly as before.

Why the EU introduced the fee

The background is the rapid growth of low-value imports and its side effects: an uneven playing field for EU-based sellers, undervaluation and fraud risks, product safety concerns, and the environmental burden of consignment splitting. The fixed fee is a fast instrument to address these before the reform's larger structures – the EU Customs Agency (2028) and the EU Customs Data Hub (2032–2037) – come online.

Compliance checklist now that the duty is live

Many companies prepared in advance – now is the moment to confirm the change has been implemented end to end:

Pricing and margin models: is the €3 per-goods-item duty (and the e-commerce handling fee arriving in November 2026) reflected in prices and landed-cost calculations?
Goods item structure: are your shipments being declared in more goods items than necessary? Optimising declaration practice reduces cost directly.
Contracts and Incoterms: do your customer, marketplace and forwarding agreements state clearly who acts as importer of record and who bears the duty?
IOSS processes: if you are an IOSS-registered seller or act as an intermediary, confirm that declaration and payment flows operate correctly under the new model – buyers can no longer self-clear IOSS shipments.
Electronic service of decisions (Finland): as a reminder, from the beginning of 2026 Finnish Customs decisions are deemed served as soon as they are available in the electronic system – appeal and review periods start running immediately. Monitoring responsibilities should be assigned.

Frequently asked questions

Does the €3 duty apply to all consignments under €150?

The duty applies to consignments valued at up to €150 arriving from outside the EU where the customs declaration is accepted on or after 1 July 2026. It is charged per goods item, so a parcel containing several different products can attract more than €3 in total.

Do IOSS-registered sellers pay the duty on behalf of buyers?

Yes. Where the seller is registered under IOSS, the seller or its intermediary lodges the declaration and pays the duty and import VAT. From 1 July 2026, buyers can no longer self-clear IOSS shipments. Where the seller is not IOSS-registered, the buyer pays the duty and VAT at clearance.

Did import VAT change at the same time?

No. Import VAT continues to be levied as before. The €3 duty is a customs duty charged in addition to VAT.

Is the €3 duty permanent?

No. It is a transitional measure. As the next phases of the EU customs reform proceed (EU Customs Agency in 2028, EU Customs Data Hub in 2032–2037), duties on low-value consignments will be calculated on a product-specific basis.

What if an order was placed in June but arrives in July?

The date the customs declaration is accepted is decisive. A declaration accepted by 30 June 2026 (MRN reference assigned) attracts no duty; a declaration accepted on or after 1 July 2026 does.

What is the legal basis for the new duty?

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/382, together with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (Annex B) under the Union Customs Code. The measure forms part of the wider EU customs reform.

How LKOS Law Office can help

We advise international sellers, marketplaces, freight forwarders and importers on customs clearance, tariff classification, import models and the contractual allocation of customs costs – from pricing updates to liability clauses in forwarding and platform agreements. Explore our customs services, or contact Oscari Seppälä or Liene Krumina directly.

This article is a general overview and does not constitute legal advice on any individual matter.

LKOS Law Office advised SIA OŠUKALNS on the acquisition of Suomen Tervaleppä Oy in Finland

Wed, 06 May 2026 06:51:00 +0000

LKOS Law Office advised SIA OŠUKALNS, a Latvian company based in Jēkabpils, in connection with its acquisition of the Finnish company Suomen Tervaleppä Oy.

The mandate at a glance

Client: SIA OŠUKALNS, Jēkabpils, Latvia — forestry and timber processing.
Target: Suomen Tervaleppä Oy, Finland — a long-standing supplier in the sauna materials segment.
Deal type: cross-border acquisition of a Finnish company by a Latvian buyer.
Our work: legal due diligence, transaction documentation, advice through to completion.
Languages: advice delivered in Latvian by a lawyer based in Finland.
Team: Liene Krumina and Oscari Seppälä.

About SIA OŠUKALNS

SIA OŠUKALNS is a Latvian company based in Jēkabpils with operations in the forestry, timber processing and related sectors. The acquisition of Suomen Tervaleppä Oy marked an important step in the company's expansion into the Finnish and wider Nordic market.

Suomen Tervaleppä Oy had been a long-standing business partner of SIA OŠUKALNS in Finland, particularly in the sauna materials segment. The transaction allowed SIA OŠUKALNS to strengthen its presence in Finland and develop its position in the Nordic market.

Our role

SIA OŠUKALNS sought our support in connection with the acquisition of a Finnish company and the related cross-border transaction process.

Our mandate included conducting legal due diligence, drafting the transaction documentation, and advising the client throughout the acquisition process. We supported the client in reviewing the Finnish legal and business aspects of the transaction and in ensuring that the transaction documentation reflected the agreed commercial terms clearly and appropriately.

As a Latvian-speaking lawyer based in Finland, Liene Krumina assisted the client in navigating the Finnish legal and business environment and helped ensure clear communication between the Latvian client, the Finnish counterparty and local advisors.

The client highlighted that having legal support in their own language was an important part of the process. The ability to communicate in Latvian, while receiving advice from a lawyer based in Finland with local legal and business understanding, helped make the cross-border acquisition process clearer, more efficient and easier to manage.

This engagement reflects the type of work we do best: supporting companies in cross-border transactions with legal advice that is technically sound, practical and easy to understand.

The matter was handled by Liene Krumina and Oscari Seppälä.

Frequently asked questions

What was LKOS Law Office's role in the SIA OŠUKALNS acquisition?

LKOS Law Office advised SIA OŠUKALNS in connection with its acquisition of Suomen Tervaleppä Oy in Finland. Our work included legal due diligence, drafting the transaction documentation, and advising the client throughout the acquisition process.

Why was Latvian-language legal support important in this transaction?

The transaction involved a Latvian company acquiring a Finnish company. Having a Latvian-speaking lawyer based in Finland helped the client communicate clearly, understand the Finnish legal and business environment, and manage the acquisition process more efficiently.

Why is local legal support important in cross-border acquisitions in Finland?

In a cross-border acquisition such as a Latvian company buying a Finnish forestry business, local Finnish legal support is essential. It allows the buyer to assess the target company's legal position under Finnish law, identify deal-specific risks, prepare transaction documents that comply with Finnish requirements, and complete the acquisition in line with local market practice.

Planning a cross-border acquisition in Finland?

We advise foreign buyers on Finnish acquisitions from first structuring through to closing. See Mergers and acquisitions and Buying a company in Finland, read more client stories, or get in touch.

Book a meeting →

Lue tämä artikkeli suomeksi: LKOS neuvoi SIA OŠUKALNS:ia Suomen Tervaleppä Oy:n hankinnassa.

Food Irradiation Labelling: Navigating Finnish Customs Compliance for Imported Food Products

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 05:56:00 +0000

When Missing Labels Stop a Shipment at Finnish Customs

Finnish Customs regularly inspects imported food products to verify compliance with EU food safety and labelling standards. In a recent case handled by LKOS Law Office, Customs detained shipments of a food product after laboratory analysis at the Finnish Customs Laboratory (Tullilaboratorio) confirmed that the product had been treated with ionising radiation — a process known as food irradiation — without any corresponding declaration on the packaging.

Under EU law, irradiated food products must be clearly labelled with the statement "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation" before they can be placed on the market. The absence of this declaration triggers a regulatory intervention, which can result in the goods being refused entry, destroyed, or — where the issue is remediable — admitted conditionally.

The Regulatory Framework for Irradiated Food in the EU and Finland

The treatment of foodstuffs with ionising radiation is governed at EU level primarily by Directive 1999/2/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation, and Directive 1999/3/EC establishing a Community list of foods and food ingredients authorised for treatment with ionising radiation. In Finland, these requirements are implemented through the Food Act (elintarvikelaki 297/2021) and related regulations, and enforced by Finnish Customs (Tulli) at the border as part of its import control mandate.

Irradiation is a legitimate food processing technique used to eliminate harmful bacteria, parasites, and insects from food products. It is widely applied to spices and dried herbs, where absorbed doses of up to 10 kGy (kilogray) are permitted. International bodies including the FAO, WHO, and IAEA have concluded that irradiated foods processed in accordance with Codex Alimentarius procedures are safe for consumption. The process does not make food radioactive, and extensive research — including long-term animal studies — has found no evidence of adverse health effects.

Nevertheless, EU consumer protection rules require that consumers are informed when food has undergone irradiation treatment. This mandatory labelling obligation applies regardless of the safety profile of the treatment and reflects the EU's commitment to consumer transparency and informed choice.

How the Case Was Resolved

The manufacturer — a major international food company with an annual turnover of approximately USD 300 million — had not been aware that its products required the irradiation declaration for EU market access. Upon being advised of the Finnish Customs findings, the company confirmed it would update its packaging without delay.

LKOS Law Office assisted the customer in assessing the regulatory position under the applicable EU directives and Finnish national legislation, preparing the necessary documentation and communications with Finnish Customs, and confirming the re-labelling approach required for conditional release of the detained shipments. Both shipments were ultimately admitted into the Finnish market on the condition that the products would be re-labelled to include the required irradiation declaration before being placed on the market.

Key Takeaways for Importers

This case illustrates a common compliance gap for companies exporting food products to the European Union. Even well-established manufacturers with significant global market presence can encounter regulatory obstacles when labelling requirements differ between jurisdictions. For irradiated food products, the EU labelling obligation is strict and non-negotiable — products that do not carry the required declaration will be detained at the border.

Importers and manufacturers should review their product labelling against EU requirements before shipment, particularly for product categories such as spices, dried herbs, and certain other foodstuffs where irradiation is commonly used. Early engagement with experienced customs and regulatory counsel can help avoid costly delays and ensure smooth market access.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is food irradiation?

Food irradiation is a processing technique in which food products are exposed to ionising radiation — typically gamma or beta radiation — to eliminate bacteria, parasites, insects, and other organisms. It can also be used to inhibit sprouting in products such as potatoes and onions. The process takes place in licensed irradiation facilities and does not make the food radioactive.

Is irradiated food safe to eat?

Yes. International expert bodies including the FAO, WHO, and IAEA have concluded that food irradiated in accordance with Codex Alimentarius procedures is safe for consumption. Extensive research, including long-term studies, has found no evidence of adverse health effects. Irradiation may reduce the content of certain vitamins — comparable to the effect of conventional cooking — but does not produce harmful substances at the doses used in food processing.

What labelling is required for irradiated food in the EU?

Under EU Directive 1999/2/EC, irradiated food products must carry the statement "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation" on the packaging before they can be placed on the EU market. This applies to all irradiated food products and ingredients, regardless of the product category. Failure to include this labelling will result in enforcement action by national customs authorities, including detention of the goods at the border.

Can irradiated food be imported into Finland without the required labelling?

No. Finnish Customs enforces EU labelling requirements at the border. If irradiated food products arrive without the mandatory declaration, they will be detained. Depending on the circumstances, the goods may be refused entry, destroyed, or admitted conditionally — for example, on the condition that they are re-labelled before being placed on the market. Importers should verify labelling compliance before shipment to avoid delays.

Contact Persons

For enquiries related to customs and product compliance matters, including food safety labelling and import controls, please contact:

Oscari Seppälä
Specialist Partner, LKOS Law Office

Liene Krumina
Managing Partner, LKOS Law Office

LKOS Law Office advises international companies on Finnish and EU customs law, product compliance, and food safety regulatory matters. If you have questions about importing food products into Finland or the EU, please contact us.

LKOS Law Office Successfully Reversed a EUR 55,000 Overload Fine for a German Transport Client

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:19:00 +0000

EUR 55,000 Overload Fine — Reversed in Full

LKOS Law Office represented a German transport operator in a matter involving an overload charge (FI: ylikuormamaksu) of approximately EUR 55,000, issued by Finnish police in connection with the client's transport operations in Finland.

Our team acted swiftly — analysing the factual and legal position, preparing the necessary submissions, and engaging directly with the relevant authorities. As a result, the full amount was reversed without the need for prolonged administrative proceedings.

What Our Client Said

"We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your outstanding support in our international legal matter. Your team was always responsive, answering our questions promptly and thoroughly, which gave us great confidence throughout the process.

We were especially impressed by how quickly and efficiently you handled the situation. Your availability for Teams meetings on short notice and your straightforward, solution-oriented approach made a significant difference.

Thanks to your expertise and dedication, the issue was resolved smoothly and without complications. It has been a pleasure working with you, and we are very grateful for your professionalism and commitment."

Our Transport Law Expertise

This case reflects our ability to deliver fast, results-oriented legal support in Finnish transport regulatory matters — from special transport permits and excess load proceedings to administrative appeals — particularly for international operators who need reliable local counsel.

We regularly advise international hauliers, freight forwarders, and logistics companies on the full range of regulatory and commercial challenges they face when operating in Finland, including overload charges, cabotage rules, special transport permits, and transport-related disputes.

The matter was handled by Oscari Seppälä, Specialist Partner at LKOS Law Office.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an overload fine (FI: ylikuormamaksu) in Finland?

An overload fine, known in Finnish as ylikuormamaksu, is an administrative charge imposed by Finnish police when a commercial vehicle exceeds the permitted axle or total weight limits. Fines can be substantial, often reaching tens of thousands of euros depending on the extent of the overload.

Can an overload fine issued by Finnish police be reversed?

Yes. Overload charges can be challenged and reversed through proper legal submissions to the relevant authorities. In this case, LKOS Law Office secured a full reversal of the EUR 55,000 charge by presenting the correct legal and factual position.

Does LKOS Law Office represent foreign transport companies in Finland?

Yes. LKOS Law Office regularly represents international hauliers, freight forwarders, and logistics companies in Finnish transport regulatory matters. The firm operates in English, Finnish, and Latvian, making it a natural partner for cross-border transport operators. For more, see our Transport, Maritime & Logistics services.

Who handled the overload fine matter at LKOS Law Office?

The matter was handled by Oscari Seppälä, Specialist Partner at LKOS Law Office and one of Finland's leading transport law practitioners.

Need help with an overload fine or transport regulatory matter in Finland?
Contact us | Schedule a meeting

Special Transport in Finland: Coupling Inspections, Road Permits, and Overload Fines — What Foreign Operators Must Know

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 07:59:00 +0000

LKOS Law Office Legal Insight Transport Law April 2026

Finland has a well-established regulatory framework governing oversized and heavy transport. For foreign hauliers entering Finland — whether from Germany, the Baltics, or elsewhere in Europe — understanding the mandatory pre-operation requirements is critical. Failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties, seizure of permits and vehicle registration certificates, and immobilisation of the entire transport unit.

This article outlines the key legal obligations and practical pitfalls, with particular focus on an issue that regularly catches foreign operators off guard: the coupling inspection (FI: kytkentäkatsastus) requirement that applies before a special transport combination may use Finnish public roads.

What Is a Special Transport Vehicle?

A special transport vehicle (FI: erikoiskuljetusajoneuvo) is a vehicle or vehicle combination whose dimensions or weight exceeds the limits applicable to normal road traffic under Finnish law. Such transport requires a special permit issued by the relevant Finnish authority — currently the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (FI: Elinvoimakeskus, formerly ELY Centre).

Typical examples include heavy modular trailers, multi-axle lowboys, and large construction or industrial equipment carriers. These vehicles are common across infrastructure, energy, and heavy industry logistics corridors into and through Finland.

Permit Requirements: Getting It Right Before Arrival

Foreign operators bringing a special transport into Finland must obtain a Finnish special transport permit (FI: erikoiskuljetuslupa) in advance. The permit specifies:

the approved route and timing of the transport;
the maximum permitted dimensions and axle loads;
any escort vehicle (saattoajoneuvo) requirements; and
any time restrictions or road authority notifications required.

It is common practice for foreign operators to appoint a Finnish subcontractor to handle the permit application and logistics coordination. While this is entirely lawful, the foreign haulier retains full legal responsibility for compliance — including obligations that may not have been clearly communicated by the subcontractor.

The Coupling Inspection Obligation: A Mandatory Pre-Condition

This is where many foreign operators encounter an unexpected legal requirement.

The obligation arises from sections 146 and 147 of the Finnish Vehicle Act (FI: ajoneuvolaki 82/2021). Section 146 defines when a coupling inspection is mandatory; section 147 sets out its content and procedure. These provisions replaced section 62 of the former Vehicle Act (1090/2002).

The regulatory history is important context. The explicit extension of the coupling inspection requirement to foreign-registered combinations was originally set out in section 16 of Regulation 1253/2002, which amended the 1992 special transport decision and stated in clear terms that the coupling inspection requirement applies equally to foreign-registered combinations used for special transport in Finland. This language was carried into the subsequent consolidated regulation (786/2012), which was repealed by Regulation 572/2017 — a pure repeal instrument containing no substantive rules of its own.

The detailed operational rules are now found in the Traficom Regulation on Special Transport and Special Transport Vehicles (TRAFICOM/51202/03.04.03.00/2025, issued March 2025), issued under the authority of the Vehicle Act, the Road Traffic Act (729/2018), and the Act on Transport Services (320/2017). When drafting this regulation, the coupling inspection obligation text was deliberately removed and replaced with a direct reference to the Vehicle Act — reflecting the view that repeating statutory requirements in subordinate rules risks interpretive confusion.

The practical result: The coupling inspection obligation for all vehicles — domestic and foreign — operating in Finland now rests directly on sections 146 and 147 of the Vehicle Act (82/2021). The Vehicle Act does not limit its application to Finnish-registered vehicles; it applies to all vehicles used on Finnish public roads. A foreign-registered special transport combination entering Finland is therefore subject to the same coupling inspection requirement as a Finnish-registered one.

The regulatory chain is summarised below:

Regulatory chain governing coupling inspection for special transport in Finland
Instrument	Key provision	Status
Vehicle Act 1090/2002, § 62	Former statutory basis for coupling inspection	Replaced
Regulation 1253/2002, § 16	Expressly extended the coupling inspection requirement to foreign-registered combinations	Repealed
Regulation 786/2012	Consolidated rules; contained the ETA exemption and the loaded/unloaded distinction	Repealed
Regulation 572/2017	Pure repeal instrument — repealed 786/2012, no substantive rules of its own	Repealing act
Ajoneuvolaki 82/2021, §§ 146–147	Primary statutory source — applies to all vehicles on Finnish roads	In force
Traficom Regulation TRAFICOM/51202/03.04.03.00/2025	Detailed operational rules; coupling inspection text removed, redirected to statute	In force

The Practical Problem: Getting to the Inspection Station

Here lies the practical tension that has led to enforcement action against otherwise compliant operators. Inspection stations authorised to carry out coupling inspections are not always located within port areas. The established industry practice may have been to drive the assembled combination directly to the inspection station along the shortest available route, which in many cases involves public roads.

This practice may have been used by operators for years and is reflected in route instructions provided by Finnish subcontractors. However, Finnish police have increasingly enforced the strict legal position: operating a special transport combination on a public road prior to the coupling inspection and/or receiving the special transport permit is unlawful, even if the destination of that journey is the inspection station itself.

Operators who are unaware of an alternative route — for example, an off-road or port-internal coupling inspection area — may find themselves in violation through no deliberate wrongdoing, guided by written instructions, traffic controllers at the port, and industry convention alike.

The ETA Exception: When Is Inspection Not Required?

Under the former Regulation 786/2012 — in force until August 2017 — there was an explicit ETA-state exemption: a coupling inspection was not required if the combination had already undergone an equivalent inspection in its ETA member state of registration, and the operator carried a certificate of that inspection in Finnish or Swedish, or an official certified translation. This provision reflected a mutual recognition principle within the EEA.

Following the repeal of 786/2012 and the transition to the current Traficom regulatory framework, the position of this exemption requires careful analysis. The Traficom Regulation (2025) does not reproduce the ETA exemption in express terms, having removed the coupling inspection text entirely and redirected to the Vehicle Act. The Vehicle Act itself does not contain an explicit ETA exemption for coupling inspections.

For operators arriving from ETA member states, the safest practical approach is to ensure that a Finnish coupling inspection is obtained — unless there is clear documentary evidence of an equivalent inspection performed abroad — and to seek advance clarification from Traficom or the inspection station as to whether such evidence will be accepted.

The loaded/unloaded distinction: The former Regulation 786/2012 provided that an unloaded combination exceeding generally permitted road dimensions could drive to the coupling inspection station without prior clearance. A loaded special transport combination arriving at a Finnish port — as is common in practice — was not entitled to this concession and could not use public roads before the inspection was completed. While the express text of this rule is no longer in the current framework in the same form, the underlying statutory logic of sections 146–147 of the Vehicle Act applies regardless.

Overload Fines (FI: Ylikuormamaksu): Consequences of Non-Compliance

Finnish police are empowered to impose an overload fine (FI: ylikuormamaksu) under the Act on Overload Fines (FI: laki ylikuormamaksusta, 51/1982) when a vehicle is found operating on a public road without the required authorisation or in breach of permit conditions. An uncoupled or uninspected special transport combination falls within this enforcement framework.

The consequences can be severe:

imposition of a substantial overload fine;
seizure (FI: takavarikko) of the special transport permit and the vehicle's registration certificate(s); and
immobilisation of the vehicle and cargo until the matter is resolved.

Police are not obliged to give the operator an opportunity to remedy the situation before issuing the fine or seizing documents. In some cases, the police may allow the vehicle to proceed to the inspection station — but this does not prevent a subsequent fine being imposed once the vehicle has returned with completed inspection documents and escort vehicles in place.

It should also be noted that section 7 of the Act on Overload Fines provides that police may, but are not required to, issue a prohibition on continuing the journey. Seizure of permits and registration certificates may in practice achieve the same effect even where no formal prohibition is issued.

The Supreme Administrative Court Ruling: KHO 2022:125

The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (FI: korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) has addressed the conditions for imposing overload fines in the context of special transport. In its ruling KHO 2022:125, the Court confirmed at paragraph 14 that:

"the mere observation that a vehicle combination is moving under load on a public road does not, as such, constitute confirmation of an overload."
KHO 2022:125, paragraph 14 — Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland)

This ruling has significant implications for enforcement practice. It establishes that the factual and legal circumstances at the time of the alleged violation must be assessed in their entirety. For special transport operators, this means that the state of permits, the inspection status, the conduct of the operator, and the surrounding circumstances — including instructions received from port personnel or subcontractors — are all relevant when considering whether to appeal from the decision.

The ruling supports arguments that fines imposed on operators who acted in good faith on established industry practice, who held all other required authorisations, and who had no intent to circumvent the law, may be susceptible to challenge.

Additionally, section 8 of the Act on Overload Fines provides that a fine may be waived or cancelled where the violation resulted from excusable inattention or another comparable special reason in light of the circumstances. This is a meaningful legal safeguard for operators who can demonstrate good-faith reliance on incorrect or incomplete guidance.

Key Takeaways for Foreign Operators

If you are bringing a special transport vehicle into Finland, the following points are essential:

Obtain your Finnish special transport permit and escort vehicle arrangements before entry — not after arrival.
Understand that the coupling inspection is a mandatory pre-condition for using Finnish public roads — it cannot be skipped or performed retrospectively.
Do not assume that your subcontractor's route instructions have accounted for all legal requirements. Verify that the route to the inspection station does not involve public roads prior to inspection clearance.
If a coupling inspection area or off-road route is available at the port of entry, use it — even if it is not mentioned in your instructions.
If police stop your vehicle, document everything: the time, the instructions you received, the permit status at each point, and the sequence of events.
If a fine is imposed or documents are seized, act promptly. Finnish administrative appeals are subject to strict deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do foreign hauliers need a coupling inspection (kytkentäkatsastus) in Finland?

Yes. Under sections 146 and 147 of the Finnish Vehicle Act (ajoneuvolaki 82/2021), all special transport vehicle combinations — including foreign-registered ones — must undergo a coupling inspection at an authorised Finnish inspection station before using Finnish public roads. The Vehicle Act does not limit its application to Finnish-registered vehicles.

Can a foreign operator drive to the coupling inspection station without prior clearance?

Only if the combination is unloaded. An unloaded special transport combination that exceeds generally permitted road dimensions could under the former regulatory framework drive to the inspection station without prior coupling inspection clearance. A loaded combination arriving at a Finnish port cannot use public roads before the inspection is completed.

What is the ylikuormamaksu (overload fine) in Finland?

The ylikuormamaksu is an administrative financial penalty imposed by Finnish police under the Act on Overload Fines (laki ylikuormamaksusta 51/1982) when a vehicle operates on a public road without required authorisation. In special transport cases this can include operating without a completed coupling inspection. Consequences include the fine itself, seizure of transport permits and registration certificates, and immobilisation of the vehicle and cargo.

What did the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court rule in KHO 2022:125?

The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) confirmed in KHO 2022:125 that the mere observation of a vehicle combination moving under load on a public road is not, as such, confirmation of an overload. All factual and legal circumstances at the time of the alleged violation must be assessed. This supports challenges to fines imposed on operators who acted in good faith on established industry practice.

What special transport permit is needed in Finland?

Special transport in Finland requires a special transport permit (erikoiskuljetuslupa) issued by the Elinvoimakeskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, formerly ELY Centre). The permit specifies the approved route, timing, maximum dimensions and axle loads, escort vehicle requirements, and any time restrictions. The permit must be obtained before the vehicle enters Finland.

How LKOS Law Office Can Assist

LKOS Law Office is a Helsinki-based boutique firm specialising in business and transport, maritime and logistics law, including special transport disputes, overload fine proceedings, and Finnish administrative enforcement matters. We have direct experience advising foreign hauliers operating in Finland on permit compliance, enforcement challenges, and appeal proceedings.

Our Services in This Area

Assessment of enforcement actions and overload fine decisions
Preparation of rectification demands (FI: oikaisuvaatimus) and administrative court appeals
Advice on the interaction between Finnish law, EU law, and special transport permit conditions
Representation before Finnish administrative authorities and courts
Pre-entry compliance advice for operators planning special transport operations in Finland

We work in English, Finnish and Latvian — and are experienced in cross-border transport matters involving operators from across the EU and beyond.

LKOS Law Office

Oscari Seppälä & Liene Krumina — Helsinki, Finland

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal situations require individual assessment. © LKOS Law Office 2026.

Our Partner Liene Krumina at TechChill 2026 | Scaling Startups Across Borders

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 07:34:00 +0000

LKOS Law Office Heads to Riga for One of the Baltic's Biggest Tech Events

TechChill 2026 – Where Baltic Tech Meets Global Ambition

LKOS Law Office Partner Liene Krumina is participating in TechChill 2026, one of the largest and most exciting tech events in the Baltic region. The event takes place in March 2026 in Riga, Latvia, bringing together international and local investors, founders, and ecosystem builders for three days of real talk about what it takes to scale a business beyond borders.

It's All About Scaling – And the Legal Side of It

TechChill 2026 is unapologetically focused on one thing: scaling. From inspiration and practical advice to AI, fintech, and venture capital, the agenda is built for founders and growth-stage companies who are ready to take their next big leap – and want to do it right.

As any founder navigating cross-border growth knows, the legal framework matters. Regulatory complexity, cross-jurisdictional contracts, and investor-ready structures are not just paperwork – they are the foundation of sustainable scaling. That's where LKOS Law Office comes in.

With a dedicated Baltic Desk and deep expertise in corporate law, M&A, and international trade, LKOS Law Office is well positioned to support companies expanding across the Nordics and Baltics. Liene's participation at TechChill is a natural extension of our commitment to the startup and tech ecosystem in the region.

Why TechChill?

TechChill has grown from a local conference into a global bridge connecting the world with CEE founders. This year's agenda tracks cover everything growth-stage companies need:

Inspiration – from founders who've scaled against all odds
Practical Advice – from specialists who've mastered the hardest parts of growth
AI & Big Data – because adapting isn't optional anymore
Fintech & Venture – leveraging capital and technology for a competitive edge
Resilience & Defence – because building in today's world requires thinking bigger

TechChill 2026 | March 2026 | Riga, Latvia

Learn more about the event: www.techchill.co