Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017-2020 (selected developments) - Concurrences

Page created by Bobby Campbell

Government & Politics

English

Like
Share
Embed
Fullscreen
Slides
Download HTML
Download PDF
Abuse

←

→

Page content transcription

If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below

Concurrences
REVUE DES DROITS DE LA CONCURRENCE | COMPETITION LAW REVIEW

Finland: Enforcement
of the Finnish Competition
and Consumer
Authority 2017–2020
(selected developments)
International                         l Concurrences N° 1-2021
www.concurrences.com

Beata Mäihäniemi
beata.maihaniemi@helsinki.fi
Postdoctoral Researcher
Law and Digitalization, Legal Tech Lab, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki

Liisa Tarkkila
liisa.tarkkila@helsinki.fi
PhD Student
European and Competition Law, University of Helsinki

International

Beata Mäihäniemi*
Finland:

constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection.
beata.maihaniemi@helsinki.fi

Enforcement
Law and Digitalization, Legal Tech Lab,
Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki

Liisa Tarkkila

of the Finnish
liisa.tarkkila@helsinki.fi
PhD Student
European and Competition Law,
University of Helsinki

ABSTRACT
This report introduces selected recent Competition
and Consumer
enforcement of the Finnish Competition
Authority (FCCA) within the last four years
(2017–2020) as well as judgements of the
Finnish Market Court as regards the cases
brought in front of it by the FCCA. Specific

Authority 2017–
developments were selected by the authors
of the report. Firstly, it shortly introduces
the current discussion on competition law and
digitalisation, which has also been active

2020 (selected
in Finland. Secondly, it analyses the current
enforcement of merger control in Finland,
as it appears that the FCCA has taken a stricter
approach than previously. Thereafter
it focuses on the competition concerns and

developments)
investigations that arose in Finland after
the taxi market was liberated for competition
and on a recent case on resale price
maintenance for which the FCCA is seeking
a penalty payment. Finally, the report
discusses recent cartel enforcement of the
FCCA. The Market Court recently gave its
decision on the alleged price
recommendations and agreeing on prices
in the market for driving schools. The FCCA
has also taken to the Market Court an alleged

I. Introduction
cartel in the market for expanded polystyrene
insulation (EPS), which involves the three
of its main suppliers in Finland.

Ce rapport présente une sélection de mesures
d’application récentes de l’Autorité finlandaise
de la concurrence (FCCA) au cours des quatre 1. Competition law in Finland
dernières années (2017-2020) ainsi que les
jugements du Tribunal du marché finlandais 1. In Finland competition law has been gradually developing since 1957 when
concernant les affaires portées devant lui par the so-called Cartel Act1 built around the principle of publicity was announced.2
la FCCA. Des développements spécifiques
ont été sélectionnés par les auteurs
Thereafter, the Act Promoting Economic Competition of 1964,3 based on the
du rapport. Tout d’abord, il introduit principle of abuse and the special negotiation procedure to remove the harmful
brièvement la discussion actuelle sur le droit effects of restriction of competition, was introduced.4 What is more, the Act of
de la concurrence et la numérisation, 19735 brought along competition authorities such as State Council, competition
qui a également été active en Finlande.
Deuxièmement, il analyse l’application actuelle ombudsman and Competition Council.6 However, Finnish competition law did
du contrôle des concentrations en Finlande, not properly develop until the late 1980s (dismantling of price deregulation in
car il apparaît que la FCCA a adopté 1988).7 The Act of 1988 on Restrictions of Competition8 added the principle of
une approche plus stricte qu’auparavant.
Ensuite, il se concentre sur les problèmes
abuse, and harmful behaviours as a result of abuse of a dominant position or
de concurrence et les enquêtes qui ont été violation of the international agreements to Finnish competition law.9
menées en Finlande après la libération
du marché des taxis pour la concurrence
et sur une affaire récente de maintien des prix
de revente pour laquelle la FCCA demande 1 47/1957.
une astreinte. Enfin, le rapport examine
l’application récente de la FCCA aux ententes. 2 P. Kuoppamäki, Uusi kilpailuoikeus, 2nd edition (Sanoma Pro Oy, 2012), p. 26.
La Cour du Marché a récemment rendu 3 1/1964.
sa décision sur les prétendues
recommandations de prix et sur l’accord 4 Kuoppamäki, supra note 4. p. 26.
sur les prix sur le marché des auto-écoles.
5 423/1973.
La FCCA a également saisi la Cour du marché
d’une prétendue entente sur le marché 6 Kuoppamäki, supra note 4. p. 26. These competition authorities have since then been replaced and restructured with other
de l’isolation en polystyrène expansé (EPS), authorities and instances.
qui implique les trois principaux fournisseurs
en Finlande. 7 Ibid., p. 25.

8 709/1988.
*We would also like to thank Ms. Laura Kontiainen
from the Legal Tech Lab for her help with the article. 9 Kuoppamäki, supra note 4. p. 26.

Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020 1

2. Prior to the entry into force of the current Competition 5. The FCCA can impose a number of measures resulting

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992).10 It, prohibition to implement a restraint of competition,16
among others, added categories of behaviours considered order to terminate a restraint of competition and
anticompetitive such as horizontal price cartels and obligation to deliver a product,17 commitments18 and
quota cartels.11 Legal changes were supposed to lessen the withdrawal of a block exemption.19 The FCCA can also
gap between Finnish and EU competition law and this propose a penalty payment for a restraint of competition.20
was a turning point for the Finnish competition law.12 In The FCCA does not itself have the authority to impose
2004 the changes to the Act on Competition Restrictions penalty payments. It does, however, have the power to
added more matters to the jurisdiction of the Finnish demand an undertaking to immediately end a competition
Competition Authority, which was established already law infringement and impose obligations to deal. These
in 1988 in cooperation with the Ministry of Trade and FCCA decisions can be appealed to the Market Court.21
Industry. The Finnish Competition Authority was Consequently, the Market Court is the first instance, on
transformed into the Finnish Competition and Consumer the FCCA’s proposal, for imposing fines and prohibiting
Authority (hereinafter “FCCA”), which was established mergers.22
as a result of the merger of the Finnish Consumer Agency
and the Finnish Competition Authority in January 2013. 6. The FCCA has been fairly active in recent years
in different fields of competition law. The FCCA has
3. The current Competition Act came into force in 2011. concluded the investigations of several competition
It is mostly reflecting the EU competition rules and infringement cases, taken what appears to be a stricter
many of its provisions are modelled in accordance with approach to merger control cases and participated in
EU regulations and case law of the courts of the EU.13 discussion on topical competition law issues, such as
digitalisation and the role of sustainability in competition
It has been amended several times since it came into
law.
force. The Finnish government has recently proposed
an amendment, which is expected to come into force in 7. The FCCA issued a number of guidelines and
February 2021. The amendment will widen the mandate papers on recent issues such as digitalisation and online
of the FCCA as regards investigations of competition platforms. Extensive studies have been also conducted in
infringements, including adding the possibility to impose different areas such as a hotel23 and the pharmaceutical
structural remedies for competition infringements and sector.24 The FCCA cooperates with other Nordic
other changes to imposing and calculating penalty competition authorities as well is a member of the
payments.14 European Competition Authorities (ECA), which is a
forum for discussion of the competition authorities in
the European Economic Area (EEA). It also cooperates
2. The Finnish Competition with other EU Member States through the European
Competition Network (ECN).
and Consumer Authority:
Tasks and recent developments 8. Moreover, Finland is getting ready to tackle an
increased number of digital cases as it already has a
4. The area of responsibility of the FCCA includes number of digital services for both the private and public
implementing competition and consumer policy, ensuring
the functionality of markets, enforcing the Competition
Act (948/2011), implementing EU competition
regulations and securing the financial and legal status of
consumers. What is more, the Consumer Ombudsman is 16 Ibid., chapter, section 8.
located within the Finnish Competition and Consumer
17 Ibid., chapter 1, section 9.
Authority.15 The FCCA functions according to the Act
18 Ibid., chapter 1, section 10.
on the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority,
the Competition Act and applicable consumer protection 19 Ibid., chapter 1, Section 11.
laws. 20 Ibid., chapter 1, Section 12.

21 Kuoppamäki, supra note 4. pp. 31–32.

22 Ibid., p. 32.

10 Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) unofficial English translation available at 23 See, e.g., M. Saastamoinen, K. Järvelä, A. Raijas, Hotellien näkemyksiä sähköisistä
https://www.fakongjian.com/int_doc/laws/20160531/0613/fi096en20160531061304.pdf varauspalvelukanavista, Kilpailu- ja kuluttajaviraston selvityksiä 6/2017, December 2017,
(last accessed 7 January 2021). https://www.kkv.fi/globalassets/kkv-suomi/julkaisut/selvitykset/2017/kkv-selvityksia-6-
2017-varauspalvelukanavat.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020).
11 Kuoppamäki, supra note 4. p. 27.
24 M. Anttinen, T. Hakola, A. Saastamoinen, V. Terävä, S. Valliluoto, Apteekkimarkkinoiden
12 Ibid., p. 28. Finland joined the EU in January 1995. kehittäminen, Kilpailu- ja kuluttajaviraston selvityksiä 5/2020, https://www.kkv.
fi/globalassets/kkv-suomi/julkaisut/selvitykset/2020/kkv-selvityksia-5-2020-
13 O. Wikberg, Johdatus kilpailuoikeuteen (Talentum, 2011), p. 28. apteekkimarkkinoiden-kehittaminen.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020). See also
14 Government Proposal (HE) 210/2020 vp. press release in English, Finnish Competition Authority, The FCCA pharmacy market
study proposes measures to reduce the costs of medicines for consumers and society,
15 Competition Act (948/2011) unofficial translation can be found here https://finlex.fi/ https://www.kkv.fi/en/current-issues/press-releases/2020/11.11.2020-the-fcca-pharmacy-
fi/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110948.pdf (last accessed 7 January 2021), chapter 1, market-study-proposes-measures-to-reduce-the-costs-of-medicines-for-consumers-and-
section 1. society (last accessed 22 December 2020).

2 Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020

sectors.25 Finland scored first out of the 28 Member States
II. FCCA’s

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
Digital Economy and Society Index is a composite index
that summarises relevant indicators on Europe’s digital
performance and tracks the evolution of EU Member
stance on digital
States in digital competitiveness.27
matters and first
3. Contents of the report “digital cases”
in a nutshell
9. The report in question focuses on a few specific areas
1. FCCA’s stance on AI/
of enforcement of the FCCA within the past four years digitalisation issues
(2017–2020). Therefore, the report only tackles specific
developments of the FCCA which were selected by the 13. In Finland, the issue of online platforms affecting
authors of the report. competition in the market has been mostly analysed
by the FCCA. This has been done, among others, by
10. Firstly, it looks into cases concerning digital area evaluating the concept of an online platform.29 FCCA
and Article 102; however, in these two cases no penalty points out that an online platform is usually defined
payment has been imposed by the Market Court upon from a non- consumer - business perspective—that is, by
a proposal of the FCCA, therefore they were not heard looking how platforms generate innovation, new business
before the Market Court.28 Secondly, it analyses the practices and competitive advantages as well as impact
current trends in merger control in Finland. It can be the market they operate in. According to the FCCA, the
argued that mergers are investigated more closely than non-consumer perspective is insufficient and should be
previously. Thereafter it focuses on the competition evolved on.30
concerns and investigations that arose in Finland after
the taxi market was liberalised and on a recent case on 14. So far the FCCA has investigated a few companies
resale price maintenance for which the FCCA is seeking and it has been doing research on the issue and publishing
a penalty payment. its own stance on the matter. This has been anticipated
by means of cooperation between Nordic competition
11. Finally, the report discusses recent cartel enforcement authorities as well as two recent reports produced by the
of the FCCA. The Market Court recently gave its decision FCCA.
on the alleged price recommendations and agreeing on
prices in the market for driving schools. The FCCA has 15. Firstly, the cooperation between Nordic competition
also taken to the Market Court an alleged cartel in the authorities and their position on current, most discussed
market for expanded polystyrene insulation (EPS), which problems in digital markets has been expressed in
involves the three of its main suppliers in Finland. a recent joint memo on “Digital platforms and the
potential changes to competition law at the European
12. The report focuses on the recent enforcement of the level. The view of the Nordic competition authorities.”31
FCCA with a focus on the past four years. As stated, In particular, Nordic countries have expressed their
overall it can be seen that the FCCA has been active stance on new regulatory proposals of the European
within the past few years, within both merger control and Commission (EC).
anticompetitive agreements.
16. The EC launched in June 2020 a public consultation
on a New Competition Tool (NCT) that would allow for
the Commission to tackle existing gaps in the current
EU competition rules and enable intervention where
structural competition problems occur.32

29 See B. Mäihäniemi, L. Tarkkila, P. Günsberg, National Report: Finland, EU Competition
Law and the Digital Economy: Protecting Free and Fair Competition in an Age of
Technological (R)evolution: XXIX Fide Congress in The Hague, 2020 Congress
25 Nordic competition authorities, Digital platforms and the potential changes to Publications, Vol. 3, D. Mândrescu, ed. (Eleven International Publishing), pp. 203–225,
competition law at the European level. The view of the Nordic competition authorities, https://boeken.rechtsgebieden.boomportaal.nl/publicaties/9789462361300#231 (last
https://www.kkv.fi/globalassets/kkv-suomi/julkaisut/pm-yhteisraportit/nordic-report- accessed 22 December 2020).
2020-digital-platforms-and-the-potential-changes-to-competition-law-at-the-european-
level.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020), p. 5. 30 T. Björkroth, K. Järvelä, A. Raijas, R. Rosendahl, M. Saastamoinen, J. Vuorinen,
Alustat kilpailu- ja kuluttajaoikeudellisessa tarkastelussa, Kilpailu- ja kuluttajaviraston
26 European Commission (2020), The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020, selvityksiä 4/2017, April 2017, https://www.kkv.fi/globalassets/kkv-suomi/julkaisut/
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-economy-and-society-index-desi selvitykset/2017/kkv-selvityksia-4-2017-alustat.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020),
(last accessed 22 December 2020). pp. 11–12.

27 Ibid. 31 Nordic competition authorities, supra note 25.

28 In Finland, penalty payments are proposed by the FCCA to the Market Court. However 32 European Commission, Inception Impact Assessment. New Competition Tool (“NCT”),
the FCCA can request the company infringing competition law to address the FCCA’s https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2020_new_comp_tool/new_comp_
concerns with commitments. tool_inception_impact_assessment.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020), p. 1.

Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020 3

17. In such situations, the EC could resort to remedies 21. What is more, Nordic competition authorities

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
infringement. The EC could then impose remedies but safeguards for parties involved such as, e.g., the right to
would not impose fines.33 The new tool would then be judicial review.43 Finally, they stress that some kind of
similar to sector-specific regulation applied in network guidance on agreements between companies to exchange,
industries and would aim at speeding competition policy share and collate data would be in place. In particular,
enforcement up.34 there is a need to assess how to design data-sharing
remedies.44
18. At the same time, the EC is also working on a
proposal of the Digital Services Act (DSA).35 This new 22. The issue of data collection has already been stressed
legal framework would modernise the current legal by the FCCA in its report on data economy, which
framework for digital services by creating a set of clear ponders upon the relationship between competition,
rules on responsibilities of digital services.36 It would also consumer protection and data protection regulation
aim at “propos[ing] ex-ante rules covering large online in data economies.45 This report points out that data
platforms acting as gatekeepers, which now set the rules of protection level in data markets requires intervention
the game for their users and their competitors. The initiative since weak competition in such markets may lead
should ensure that those platforms behave fairly and can to extensive data collection. By contrast, in a well-
be challenged by new entrants and existing competitors, functioning market, users would be able to choose from a
so that consumers have the widest choice and the Single number of different data protection options. The report
Market remains competitive and open to innovations.”37 shows a possibility for enterprises to compete on quality
by means of data protection. However, consumers still
19. There would therefore be a list of allowed and pay for services with their data.46
forbidden conducts that digital gatekeepers could be
involved in. However, competition law would need to 23. Secondly, the other report issued by the FCCA, one on
assess the harmfulness of the behaviours in-between.38 digital platforms,47 points out that Finnish competition
A legislative proposal on the issue has been recently law regulations, in particular Sections 5 and 7 of the
drafted.39 Finnish Competition Act, as well as Articles 101 and 102
TFEU are fit to address the anticompetitive behaviours
20. Nordic competition authorities support assessment of online platforms.48 As pointed out by Dr. Vuorinen
of new EC regulatory initiatives. However, they stress that from the FCCA, the FCCA does not yet have any specific
one has to weigh the advantages and risks associated with policy on digital markets.49 However, the FCCA Director,
such a regulatory intervention and ensure legal certainty Rainer Lindberg, acknowledges that the whole economy
as well as predictability.40 At the same time, Nordic is already extensively digitised and competition law
competition authorities point out that the application should be applied recognising and accepting such a state
of these new initiatives raises a number of procedural of affairs.50
and substantive issues such as the legal standard to be
adopted, how engaged should the companies involved 24. Finally, this report also mentions that price algorithms
in these proceedings be, as well as relevant national could be analysed under the scrutiny of competition law.51
competition authorities.41 Nordic competition authorities It could be possibly analysed as a prohibited exchange of
also recommend some kind of guidelines on how the information.52
NCT should be used.42

33 Ibid., p. 4. 43 Ibid.

34 European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. The 44 Ibid., p. 13.
Digital Markets Act: EU Competition Policy at a Crossroads, https://www.eui.eu/
DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Dissemination/News/The-Digital- 45 A. Raijas, R. Rosendahl, M. Saastamoinen, J. Vuorinen, Kilpailun ja kuluttajansuojan
Markets-Act-EU-Competition-Policy-at-a-Crossroads (last accessed 22 December 2020). kysymyksiä datataloudessa, Kilpailu- ja kuluttajaviraston selvityksiä 1/2019, January
2019, https://www.kkv.fi/globalassets/kkv-suomi/julkaisut/selvitykset/2019/kkv-
35 European Commission, The Digital Services Act package, Shaping Europe’s digital future, selvityksia-1-2019-kilpailun-ja-kuluttajansuojan-kysymyksia-datataloudessa.pdf (last
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-services-act-package (last accessed accessed 22 December 2020), p. 9.
22 December 2020).
46 Ibid., p. 27.
36 Ibid.
47 Björkroth et al. supra note 30.
37 Ibid.
48 Ibid., p. 19.
38 European University Institute, supra note 34.
49 Mäihäniemi et al. supra note 29, pp. 203–225.
39 See European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) anamending 50 R. Lindberg, Digimarkkinoiden kilpailukysymykset kiinnostavat kansainvälisesti,
Directive 2000/31/EC, Brussels, 15.12.2020, COM(2020) 825 final 2020/0361 (COD). Ajankohtaista kilpailusta, 12 March 2019, https://ajankohtaistakilpailusta.
fi/2019/03/12/digimarkkinoiden-kilpailukysymykset-kiinnostavat-kansainvalisesti (last
40 Nordic competition authorities, supra note 25. accessed 22 December 2020).

41 Ibid., p. 19 51 Björkroth et al. supra note 30, p. 22.

42 Ibid. 52 Mäihäniemi et al. supra note 29, p. 208.

4 Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020

2. “Digital cases” 2.2 Faba osuuskunta/ProAgria Keskusten

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
25. In this section, two investigations of the FCCA into
cases with digital characteristics are looked into—that is, Laskentakeskus Oy
Pizza-Online and Faba osuuskunta, ProAgria Keskusten 29. Finally, another so-called digital case concerned
Liitto ry and Suomen Maatalouden Laskentakeskus Oy. markets for selective breeding and output tracking
However, in these cases no penalty payment has been records and the software that utilises them.62 The case is
imposed by the Market Court upon a proposal of the already from 2014, but relevant due to the limited amount
FCCA, therefore they were not heard before the Market of digitalisation-related competition cases in Finland. In
Court.53 Such a penalty payment is imposed under Finland purebred cows or sheep are documented in specific
Section 12 of the Finnish Competition Act (FCA)54 for herd books that are also registered in specific breeding
major infringements of competition law upon a proposal and yield monitoring registers.63 Farms are provided with
from the FCCA.55 Both these cases have been concluded specific enterprise resource planning (ERP) software,
without the FCCA taking any further action.56 which makes it possible to both send information to the
processing and output monitoring registers and retrieve
2.1 Pizza-Online the information they contain. Nevertheless, this software
was only provided by one particular company that was
26. In 2017, the FCCA found Pizza-Online abusing its also able to utilise the information in the registers.64
dominant position by imposing an exclusive supply
clause on restaurants using Pizza-Online, as a result of 30. The companies providing the purebred registers
which these restaurants were not allowed to use other Faba osuuskunta, ProAgria Keskusten Liitto ry are
food ordering and payment platforms.57 Pizza-Online also owned by the company providing the software,
also prohibited restaurants that use Pizza-Online from Suomen Maatalouden Laskentakeskus Oy. Jointly, these
charging different prices for ordering their food through companies had, according to the FCCA, abused their
internet and food portions sold directly in restaurants.58 dominant market position by denying other companies
access to their processing and yield monitoring registers.
27. Pizza-Online is an online food ordering service used This has affected the effective competition in the market
by independent restaurant entrepreneurs and chains and since it requires access to such registers.65
customers. It connects restaurants and customers.59
31. The case66 could be classified as one on a refusal to deal.
28. The alleged abuse Pizza-Online was involved in was Competitors of Faba osuuskunta, ProAgria Keskusten
an exclusive supply clause, which had been included Liitto ry and Suomen Maatalouden Laskentakeskus Oy
in its agreements with the restaurants, that prohibited were unable to compete unless interfaces are built into
them from entering into agreements with Pizza- the registers to allow data to be sent and received.67
Online’s competing food order services.60 Pizza-Online 32. Competitors were unable to successfully compete in
subsequently informed the FCCA that it had removed the the market for software utilising processing and output
mandatory exclusive supply clauses from its agreements registers.68 Consequently, access to the processing and
and that the restaurants were free to use other food yield monitoring registers must therefore be considered
order service providers. The FCCA therefore ended the objectively necessary to operate in the market for
investigation without concluding whether Pizza-Online software using output tracking registers.69
had infringed competition law.61
33. FCCA required the companies in question to commit
to offering interfaces that would allow third parties, i.e.,
companies operating in the commercial software market,
to access the registers.70 Therefore, no penalty has been
proposed by the FCCA to the Market Court.

62 FCCA commitment decision, Reference No. 956/14.00.00/2011, 18 December 2014 (Faba
53 Ibid., p. 203. osuuskunta/ProAgria Keskusten Liitto ry/Suomen Maatalouden Laskentakeskus Oy).

54 The Finnish Competition Act (No. 948/2011) (unofficial translation), https://www.finlex. 63 FCCA statement, KKV:n päätös lisää kilpailua maatilatalouden ohjelmistojen
fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110948.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020). markkinoilla, 18 December 2014, https://www.kkv.fi/ajankohtaista/
Tiedotteet/2014/18.12.2014-kkvn-paatos-lisaa-kilpailua-maatilatalouden-
55 Ibid. ohjelmistojen-markkinoilla (last accessed 22 November 2020).
56 Mäihäniemi et al. supra note 29, p. 203. 64 Ibid.
57 Ibid., p. 1, para. 4.2. 65 Ibid.
58 Ibid. 66 FCCA commitment decision, supra note 62.
59 Ibid., p. 2, para. 5.2. (6) 67 Ibid., para. 55.
60 See Finnish Competition Authority, Kilpailu- ja kuluttajaviraston vuosikirja 2017, 68 Ibid., para. 49.
2017, https://www.kkv.fi/globalassets/kkv-suomi/julkaisut/vuosikirjat/kkv/kkv-
vuosikertomus-2017.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2020), p. 11. 69 Ibid., para. 53.

61 Ibid. See also Mäihäniemi et al. supra note 29, p. 204. 70 Ibid., section 6.4.

Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020 5

III. Recent 35. In addition, the FCCA in 2019 gave its first “stop-the-

in merger control the merger notification requirements were not applicable
in that particular case.75 Though the FCCA found that

in Finland the joint venture should have been notified when created,
no penalty payment was requested, as the set-up and
whether the joint venture was full-function, and thus
34. In recent years, the Finnish merger control regime applicability of the merger control legislation to the joint
has seen interesting developments. There has been an venture, was ambiguous.76
increase in merger notifications that have been found to be
incomplete71 and quite a few cases have also been taken to 36. Another possible sign of stricter enforcement of
a phase 2 investigation. Between the beginning of merger merger control in Finland is that until recently the FCCA
control in Finland (1998) and 2016, the FCCA initiated had proposed the prohibition77 of only three mergers
49 second phase investigations. Whereas in the past four since the beginning of merger control in Finland. Those
years there have been 21 investigations in the second cases were not successful in the Market Court, as it
phase. There was a clear peak in 2018. It can partially be concluded in all those cases that the mergers did not
explained by the type of cases in investigation, but it is impede the effective competition in a manner that the
worthwhile to note that only three of the cases resulted mergers should have been prohibited. However, between
in an approval subject to remedies. Between 2017 and 2019 and 2020 the FCCA has proposed the prohibition
2020, the FCCA has also asked the Market Court for an of two mergers.
extension to the second phase investigation, as allowed
by the Competition Act,72 in six mergers that it has 37. The first prohibition proposal, and subsequent
investigated.73 It appears that the FCCA seems to have prohibition by the Market Court,78 concerned the
taken a more detailed approach to investigating mergers. market of non-specialised wholesale trade. According to
This could also relate to the overall increase in data and the investigation by the FCCA, the merger would have
its digitalisation, which most likely has made conducting significantly impeded competition in the wholesale of
the investigations more complex. However, it also seems daily products for foodservice customers.79 The merged
that the FCCA has set a higher standard for the merger entity would have had a dominant position in the market
notifications and conducts more detailed investigations of non-specialised wholesale trade.80 It would have then
than previously. led to an increase in the prices for private foodservice
customers, which in turn would have increased the
Mergers Phase 2 Approved Approved Pro- prices of restaurant meals for consumers as customers
notified to investiga- with com- hibition
the FCCA tion mitments proposal of restaurants and hotels.81 The notifying party had
proposed behavioural remedies, but the FCCA did not
2020 24* 4 18 2 1
consider them to be sufficient to remove the problems to
2019 36 **
3 30 4 1 competition that the merger would have caused.82 The
2018 39 9 36 3 0
Market Court agreed with the FCCA’s proposal and the

2017 29 5 27 2 0

74 According to the FCCA in the case the notifying party provided on its own initiative
materials and economic analysis based on these materials. The FCCA decided to give
the stop-the-clock decision as the new materials would delay the conclusion of the
FCCA’s decision. FCCA statement, Caverionin ja Maintpartnerin välisen yrityskaupan
käsittelyaikaa on jatkettu 24.11.2019 saakka, 4 September 2019, https://www.kkv.
fi/ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet/2019/4.9.2019-caverionin-ja-maintpartnerin-valisen-
yrityskaupan-kasittelyaikaa-on-jatkettu-24.11.2019-saakka (last accessed 22 December
2020).

75 FCCA decision (YIT Suomi Oy ja GT Invest Oy), Reference No. KKV/652/14.00.10/2019,
1 August 2019, p. 3.

76 Ibid., p. 4.

77 In Finland the Market Court has the authority to prohibit mergers on the proposal of the
71 There have been several cases since the beginning of 2018 that have been considered FCCA, Section 25 of the Competition Act.
incomplete. Interestingly one merger filing was considered incomplete at the end of the
second phase of the investigation (FCCA decision (Avarn Security Holding AS/Prevent 360 78 Market Court decision (Kesko Oyj/Heinon Tukku Oy), MAO:50/20, Reference
Holding Oy), Reference No. KKV/121/14.00.10/2018, 12 October 2018). The merger was No. 2019/375, 17 February 2020.
first notified in January 2018, then considered incomplete in May 2018 and subsequently 79 FCCA proposal to the Market Court to prohibit a merger (Kesko Oyj/Heinon Tukku Oy),
refiled in June 2018. Reference No. KKV/55/14.00.10/2019, 18 November 2019, para. 1.
72 Finnish Competition Act, Section 26. 80 Kesko Oyj/Heinon Tukku Oy supra note 78, paras. 802–803.
73 No such extensions were requested or approved between 2013 and 2016. 81 FCCA statement, 17 February 2020, Markkinaoikeus kielsi Keskon ja Heinon
Tukun välisen yrityskaupan, available at https://www.kkv.fi/ajankohtaista/
*
There are currently (22 December 2020) two pending merger cases at the FCCA and one Tiedotteet/2020/17.2.2020-markkinaoikeus-kielsi-keskon-ja-heinon-tukun-valisen-
merger notification was cancelled by the notifying party. yrityskaupan (last accessed 22 December 2020).
**
One merger notification was cancelled by the notifying party. 82 Kesko Oyj/Heinon Tukku Oy supra note 78, para. 474.

6 Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020

merger was prohibited,83 making it the first merger to be 40. The corona pandemic has also had its effect on the

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
Finland. made to the Competition Act in October 2020, which
prolonged the duration of the second phase of a merger
38. In September 2020 the FCCA also proposed the investigation from 69 working days to 92 working days.
prohibition of a merger between two health service The law came into force retroactively and applied to all
providers to the Market Court.84 The Finnish health mergers that were notified after 2 July 2020. It was in
services market has three major health service providers, force until the end of October 2020.92 The amendment
out of which two were parties to the planned acquisition. was made due to difficulties the FCCA faced conducting
According to the FCCA, these two companies are each market investigations during the pandemic. The concern
other competitors in almost all segments of private health was that they would not get responses for information
care and provide services widely for private persons, requests from other parties, such as customers and
companies, insurance companies and public service competitors, as well and swiftly as necessary for the
customers. According to the market investigations by the investigation.93
authority, the merger would most likely lead to significant
rises in prices in all these segments for the detriment of
customers and taxpayers.85 The parties tried to propose
remedies, but the FCCA did not consider them sufficient IV. Other important
developments: Taxi
to address the concerns to competition. The Director of
Merger Control at the FCCA stated in the FCCA press
release: “Not all mergers can be cleared with remedies. Due
to the scale and gravity of the competition concerns, the
remedies were not a realistic option”86 market and RPM
39. While the proposed merger was under the examination case (Article 101
TFEU)
of the Market Court, the health service providers issued
a statement that they will not proceed with the planned
merger.87 According to the parties this was due to the
requirements of the Finnish Securities Market Act, as the
acquiring company was no longer able to extend the 1. Opening of the taxi market
voluntary public cash tender offer.88 The Market Court
therefore concluded that the merger had been cancelled and associated cases
and the prerequisites for the Market Court to decide the
41. In Finland, the FCCA has investigated the allegedly
case no longer existed and the matter was considered to
anticompetitive behaviour of companies that provide taxi
have lapsed.89 The Market Court clearly stated that if the
rides sponsored by one of the government agencies—
parties decided to again proceed with the merger, even if
the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA).94
it were completed exactly as previously, the merger would
KELA provides basic economic security for everyone
be assessed in at least a partially different competition
living in Finland.95 Rides paid from public funds are
environment, and therefore, any statements by the Market
of great importance for the operation of the Finnish
Court in this case would have no effects in assessing a future
taxi market.96 The importance of KELA rides for taxi
merger notification in the matter.90 It is currently unknown
operators varies regionally, but the importance of KELA
whether the health service providers will appeal this decision.
rides is especially emphasised in areas outside larger

83 Kesko Oyj/Heinon Tukku Oy supra note 78, para. 995. 91 Similarly, the corona pandemic has had its effect on competition law enforcement for
84 FCCA proposal to the Market Court to prohibit a merger (Mehiläinen Oy/Pihlajalinna agreements between competitors in Finland. The FCCA has also issued in the spring of
Oyj), Reference No. KKV/1233/14.00.10/2019, 29 September 2020. 2020 a press release where it states that during Finland’s state of emergency, companies
may need to work together to ensure adequate supply or the equal distribution of
85 FCCA statement, KKV esittää Mehiläisen ja Pihlajalinnan välisen yrityskaupan kieltämistä, products to all consumers. The FCCA has stated that it will not intervene in measures
29 September 2020, https://www.kkv.fi/ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet/2020/29.9.2020- that are necessary to ensure the sufficient availability of products. These measures are
kkv-esittaa-mehilaisen-ja-pihlajalinnan-valisen-yrityskaupan-kieltamista (last accessed in accordance with the document on the impact of the coronavirus on the application
22 December 2020). of competition legislation issued by the European Commission in cooperation with
competition authorities from the EU. FCCA, Press release 23.3.2021, Exceptional
86 FCCA statement, The FCCA proposes the Market Court to prohibit the merger between circumstances caused by the coronavirus to affect the application of the Finnish
Mehiläinen and Pihlajalinna, 29 September 2020, https://www.kkv.fi/en/current-issues/ Competition Act, https://www.kkv.fi/en/current-issues/press-releases/2020/23.3.2020-
press-releases/2020/29.9.2020-the-fcca-proposes-the-market-court-to-prohibit-the- exceptional-circumstances-caused-by-the-coronavirus-to-affect-the-application-of-the-
merger-between-mehilainen-and-pihlajalinna/ (last accessed 22 December 2020). competition-act (last accessed 7 January 2021).
87 Mehiläinen Oy press release, Mehiläinen Yhtiöt Oy:n kaikista Pihlajalinna Oyj:n 92 Response of the Parliament EV 98/2020 vp, https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/
osakkeista tekemän vapaaehtoisen julkisen käteisostotarjouksen lopullinen tulos; EduskunnanVastaus/Sivut/EV_98+2020.aspx (last accessed 22 December 2020).
Mehiläinen Yhtiöt Oy ei toteuta ostotarjousta, 25 November 2020, https://www.
mehilainen.fi/lehdistotiedotteet/mehilainen-yhtiot-oyn-kaikista-pihlajalinna-oyjn- 93 Government proposal (HE) 99/2020 vp, p. 5.
osakkeista-tekeman (last accessed 10 January 2020).
94 Ibid., pp. 1–2, para. 4.
88 Market Court decision (Mehiläinen Oy/Pihlajalinna Oyj), MAO:581/20, Reference
No. 2020/393, 29 December 2020. 95 KELA, About Kela, https://www.kela.fi/web/en/about-kela (last accessed 19 December
2020).
89 Ibid., paras. 26 and 30.
96 FCCA decision (Kokkolan Taksiliikenne Oy), Reference No. KKV/249/14.00.00/2019, 3
90 Ibid., para. 29. June 2020, pp. 1–2, para. 4.

Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020 7

cities and agglomerations.97 KELA rides constitute a quotas. These restrictions aimed at safeguarding the

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
account for up to 20% of the total turnover in the sector the taxicab brokerage.106 Secondly, the taxi rides were
nationally.98 not evenly distributed, e.g., taxis in a given locality or
group of journeys were given priority.107 Thirdly, taxi
42. According to the FCCA, the liberalisation of the drivers were prohibited from driving for other taxicab
taxi system that has been conducted in 2018 created brokerages, which could have weakened the operating
more competition and lessened the amount of regulation conditions of taxi operators or other intermediaries.108
in the industry. However, it also brought a number of Fourthly, taxi drivers have agreed on too extensive shifts,
changes to the detriment of consumers.99 For example, e.g., unnecessarily extensive on-call and 24-hour shifts
taxi operators started to struggle to obtain KELA rides throughout the area. The FCCA has given more detailed
from taxicab brokerages, which led to launching an instructions to the taxi industry on agreeing driving shifts
investigation into the operation of the taxicab brokerages and emergency positions.109
in the spring of 2019 by the FCCA.100
46. In the result of the investigations, the agency has also
43. The operation of these taxicab brokerages has updated its guidance for the taxi industry.110
prevented or impeded the activities of taxi drivers,
which has reduced competition in the taxi markets and
also reduced customers’ choice.101 Taxicab brokerages 2. Isojoen Konehalli Oy
are often owned by taxi operators and the FCCA has
47. One of the other major recent developments is a
investigated the problems in question as prohibited
case of Isojoen Konehalli Oy (IKH) tackling resale price
cooperation between competing companies. What is
maintenance (RPM).111
more, taxi operators are often dependent on access to
local taxicab brokerages.102 For example, where the taxi
company has been operating as the only order brokerage 48. The previous case on RPM in Finland has been decided
centre for KELA rides in its area, such an operation, has, by the Market Court in 2011 as regards the practices of
according to the FCCA, strengthened the taxi company’s Iittala Group Oy,112 where the Market Court ordered
position in relation to taxi operators and end customers.103 Iittala to pay a penalty fee of €3,000,000 for setting for its
independent retailers in Finland the lowest permitted retail
44. During the FCCA investigation seven taxicab price for the company’s best-known products such as KoKo,
brokerages—Kokkolan Taksiliikenne Oy, Kuru-Taksi Teema, Aalto, Moomin, Kivi, Mariskooli and 24h between
Oy, Pohjanmaan Taksi Oy, PRO-Keskus Oy, Taksi April 2005 and the end of 2007.113 The Market Court found
Päijänne Oy, Tampereen Aluetaksi Oy and Vaasan that RPM had the purpose of setting minimum prices
Ulataksi Oy104—have changed their mode of operation. and raising the price level of Iittala’s products, as well
However, the operations of the six other companies are as reducing competition between distributors of Iittala’s
still under FCCA’s investigation.105 products. The procedure covered the entire territory of
Finland and lasted for several years.114
45. The FCCA has especially focused in its investigation
on the following practices that may have restricted 49. However, the largest penalty payment proposal
competition between taxi operators and slowed down so far imposed for setting the resale price in
the opening of the taxi market to incomers. Firstly, taxi Finland—€9 million—was given to the IKH.115 IKH
drives were prevented from accessing the mediation
of their rides to consumers by various restrictions and
106 FCCA statement, supra note 98.

107 Ibid.

97 Ibid. 108 Ibid.

98 FCCA statement, KKV:n taksiselvitykset: Seitsemän välityskeskuksen toiminnan tutkinta 109 Ibid.
päättyy – kuutta keskusta epäillään yhä kielletyistä kilpailunrajoituksista, 4 June 2020, 110 Ibid.
https://www.kkv.fi/ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet/2020/4.6.2020-kkvn-taksiselvitykset-
seitseman-valityskeskuksen-toiminnan-tutkinta-paattyy--kuutta-keskusta-epaillaan- 111 FCCA penalty payment proposal (Isojoen Konehalli Oy), Reference No.
yha-kielletyista-kilpailunrajoituksista (last accessed 22 December 2020). KKV/676/4.00.00/2015, 20 May 2020. The case is pending in the Market Court at the time
of writing. See FCCA blog, Määrähinnoittelu toimitus- ja jakelusopimuksissa rajoittaa
99 Ibid. kilpailua, Ajankohtaista kilpailuoikeutta, 29 May 2020, https://ajankohtaistakilpailusta.
100 Ibid. fi/2020/05/29/maarahinnoittelu-toimitus-ja-jakelusopimuksissa-rajoittaa-kilpailua (last
accessed 22 December 2020).
101 Ibid.
112 Market Court decision (Iittala Group Oy Ab), MAO:594/11, Reference No. 159/10/KR,
102 FCCA decision (Kuru-Taksi Oy), Reference No. KKV/250/14.00.00/2019, 3 June 2020, 20 December 2011.
pp. 7–8, para. 30.
113 Ibid.
103 Ibid., p. 2, para. 7.
114 Ibid.
104 See all the taxi investigations in detail: FCCA decision (Vaasan Ulataksi Oy), Reference
No. KKV/257/14.00.00/2019, 3 June 2020; FCCA decision (Tampereen Aluetaksi Oy), 115 Isojoen Konehalli Oy supra note 111, see also FCCA statement, KKV esittää 9 miljoonan
Reference No. KKV/256/14.00.00/2019; FCCA decision (PRO-Keskus Oy), Reference euron seuraamusmaksua IKH:lle jälleenmyyjien hintojen määräämisestä, 20 May 2020,
No. KKV/254/14.00.00/2019, 3 June 2020; FCCA decision (Pohjanmaan Taksi Oy), https://www.kkv.fi/ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet/2020/20.5.2020-kkv-esittaa-9-miljoonan-
Reference No. KKV/253/14.00.00/2019, 3 June 2020; Kuru-Taksi Oy supra note 102, euron-seuraamusmaksua-ikhlle-jalleenmyyjien-hintojen-maaraamisesta (last accessed
Kokkolan Taksiliikenne Oy supra note 96. 22 December 2020); see also I. Lindfors, H. Puskala, A. Paanajärvi, Vertikaaliset
kilpailunrajoitukset verkkokaupassa – sääntely murroksessa, Defensor Legis 2020/4,
105 Ibid. pp. 575, 583.

8 Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020

is a company that imports mainly tools, machines, 55. The Market Court concluded that appellant’s

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art.
L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document
protective gear, fasteners, tyres for agricultural machines FCCA’s decision were unfounded. The Market Court
and batteries from over 30 different countries. Their rejected IKH’s claims demanding the rejection of the
product range includes over 50,000 items which are sold execution of the FCCA’s decision in Isojoen Konehalli Oy
in Finland through different dealer networks and to case.123 The court had, among others, pointed out that
strongly growing export markets.116 Isojoen Konehalli has not put forward any arguments in
support of its claims for non-execution of the FCCA’s
50. The FCCA’s proposal of the fine to IKH to the decision that would prove the decision may cause
Market Court was based on the finding that Isojoen significant harm.124
Konehalli Oy has committed an offence under Sections 4
and 5 of the FCA and Article 101 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.117 The case is
pending in the Market Court at the time of writing. V. Recent cartel cases
51. RPM has manifested itself in two ways. The company
has set RPM for IKH products to IKH dealers as fixed
in the Market Court
resale price in the IKH online store, as well as required 56. Within the past two years the FCCA has also
resellers in their other distribution channels to comply proposed penalty payments for two different cartels, one
with the minimum resale price of IKH products.118 on the market for driving schools and one for the market
Therefore, at least for the period from 16 February 2010 for expanded polystyrene insulation materials.
to 20 February 2015, IKH set minimum resale prices
for IKH products as recommended “guide retail prices” 57. The Market Court recently gave its decision on the
and pressured dealers to comply with these prices. IKH cartel in the driving school market.125 The FCCA sought
monitored the prices of its dealers and contacted sellers a penalty payment for two different infringements from
whose prices were below its recommended prices. If the a regional trade association and eight different driving
dealer failed to comply with the required price level, IKH schools.126 The investigated cartel related to an upcoming
removed the company’s discounts, banned the use of the driving licence reform, which added new requirements
IKH trademark, suspended deliveries and also terminated to obtaining a driving licence for regular passenger
the dealer’s business cooperation agreement.119 cars. The first infringement was initiated through the
regional trade association. The FCCA alleged that the
52. IKH has also required that resellers joining the IKH trade association and its board issued recommendations
online store would comply with a fixed resale price for IKH to raise prices. These were especially done through
products. Through the IKH online store, IKH and IKH organised local discussion sessions and training sessions.
resellers sold IKH products at an agreed fixed resale price.120 The regional association organised a training session,
which had as its topic “economic considerations /
53. FCCA ordered IKH to stop imposing a minimum profitable business” due to changes in driving licences.
price on products to its resellers and making them agree on The need for this training was explained to be that
a fixed resale price in the IKH online store. According to without guidance the driving school teachers would not
the FCCA, resale price maintenance has affected the sale know how to incorporate the extra work brought by
of IKH’s products throughout Finland. The infringement the new reform into their pricing.127 The Market Court,
started in 2010 and still continues in some respects.121 however, did not find sufficient proof that the training
sessions included any actual price recommendations.128
54. IKH has demanded the Market Court to suspend Nonetheless, the Market Court found that the regional
the enforcement of the decision of the FCCA until the trade association had given price recommendations
Market Court has resolved the main case, or alternatively by single emails with only one recipient129 and in a
to suspend the enforcement of the FCCA’s decision until regional meeting that was organised on the behalf of
30 November 2020. The Market Court rejected IKH’s the regional trade association.130 The entire board of
application to prohibit the execution of the FCCA’s the regional trade association was also considered liable
decision at the end of September.122 for the infringement as they all were aware of the price

123 Ibid.
116 IKH, IKH in brief, https://www.ikh.fi/en/ikh/company/isojoen-konehalli-oy (last
accessed 22 December 2020). 124 Ibid.

117 Isojoen Konehalli Oy supra note 111. 125 Market Court decision (Uudenmaan Autokouluyhdistys ry and others), MAO:548/20,
Reference No. 2019/377, 15 December 2020.
118 Ibid., p. 4, para. 4.
126 FCCA penalty payment proposal (Uudenmaan Autokouluyhdistys ry and others),
119 Ibid., p. 5, para. 8. Reference No. KKV/54/14.00.00/2016, 21 November 2019.
120 Ibid.,p. 5, para. 9. 127 Ibid., paras. 28–29.
121 FCCA statement supra note 115. 128 Market Court decision (Uudenmaan Autokouluyhdistys ry and others) supra note 125.
122 Market Court interim decision (Isojoen Konehalli Oy), MAO:423/20, Reference 129 Ibid., paras. 110–111.
No. 2020/257, 29 September 2020, available at https://www.markkinaoikeus.fi/fi/index/
paatokset/kilpailuasiat/kilpailuasiat/1602247526032.html (last accessed 22 December 2020). 130 Ibid., para. 115.

Concurrences N° 1-2021 I International I Beata Mäihäniemi, Liisa Tarkkila I Finland: Enforcement of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2017–2020 9

You can also read