pipelife-finland-competition-case-sac


Ihmiset Osaaminen Palvelut Rahoitusoikeus Kilpailuoikeus, Kauppa ja Ulkomaiset Investoinnit Rakentaminen Yrityskauppapalvelut Yritysrikokset Tietosuoja, tietoturva ja teknologia Työoikeus Rahoituspalvelujen sääntely Heinonen Vakuutusoikeus Immateriaalioikeudet Riidanratkaisu Yksityishenkilöjuridiikka Kiinteistöt Sopimusoikeus Vero-oikeus Toimialat Kuluttajapalvelut Kuluttajapalvelut Hospitality and Leisure Luxury Energia Energia Hydrogen Rahoitus Julkissektori Teollisuus Terveysteknologia ja terveydenhuolto Kiinteistöt Teknologia, media ja telekommunikaatio Teknologia, media ja telekommunikaatio Digital Infrastructure Ajankohtaista Julkaisut Asiakastyökalut Tapahtumat ja koulutukset Puheenaiheet Yritys Meistä Firm leadership Arvot Responsible business Yhteisö Monimuotoisuus ja osallisuus Ympäristövastuu Pro bono Reports Uutiset Urapolku Ura Hakemukset Miksi valita meidät? Juristit ja osakkaat Hallinnon ammattilaiset Opiskelijat ja vastavalmistuneet Toimistot Suomi Kansainväliselle sivustolle Valitse paikallinen sivusto Aasia Alankomaat Angola Arabiemiirikunnat Belgia Bulgaria Espanja Etelä-Afrikka Globaali Irak Irlanti Iso-Britannia Italia Itävalta Jordania Latvia Liettua Luxemburg Mauritius Mosambik Portugali Puola Qatar Ranska Romania Ruotsi Saksa Saudi-Arabia Slovakia Suomi Sveitsi Tšekki Tunisia Unkari Viro Yhdysvallat Muu maailma fi Valikko English pipelife-finland-competition-case-sac Etusivu Yritys Uutiset Etusivu Yritys Uutiset We advised Pipelife Finland Oy in a landmark competition law dispute before the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland We advised Pipelife Finland Oy in a landmark competition law dispute before the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland 06. marraskuuta 2025 Suomi Suomi Suomi On 3 November 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (SAC) dismissed the appeal filed by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) concerning legal costs in a competition law case. The case related to alleged prohibited cooperation in the market for plastic infrastructure pipes in Finland and involved several pipe manufacturers and wholesalers. After a lengthy investigation and court proceedings, in August 2024 the Market Court rejected the FCCA’s proposal for the imposition of fines, finding that the authority had not presented sufficient evidence to support its allegations. The Market Court also ordered the FCCA to reimburse part of the companies’ legal costs. The FCCA did not appeal the Market Court’s decision on the substance of the case but sought to overturn the ruling on legal costs. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Market Court’s decision and further ordered the FCCA to compensate part of the companies’ costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before the SAC. We successfully represented Pipelife Finland Oy throughout the process – from the FCCA’s surprise inspection to the Supreme Administrative Court’s final decision – over a period of more than nine years. Our team consisted of Partner Niina Rosenlund, Partner Olli Hyvönen, Counsel Heidi Markus, Associate Vivian Villa, and Associate Alex Niva. Eversheds Sutherland takes all reasonable care to ensure that the materials, information and documents, including but not limited to articles, newsletters, reports and blogs (""Materials"") on the Eversheds Sutherland website are accurate and complete. However, the Materials are provided for general information purposes only, not for the purpose of providing legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the present law or regulations. The Materials should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. The Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. The content and interpretation of the Materials and the law addressed in the Materials are subject to revision. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the Materials and therefore the Materials should not be relied upon. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of the Materials to the fullest extent permitted by law. The Materials are not intended to be comprehensive or to include advice on which you may rely. You should always consult a suitably qualified Lawyer/Attorney on any specific legal matter. Any views expressed through the Materials are the views of the individual author and may not reflect the views of Eversheds Sutherland or any other individual Lawyer/Attorney. Palvelut Riidanratkaisu Toimialat Teollisuus Yhteyshenkilöt Niina Rosenlund Partner Helsinki, Suomi Uusimmat Artikkelit guides and reports EU: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive legal updates Navigating energy storage globally legal updates Construction Projects in the GCC legal updates Commercially Connected - October 2026 Uusimmat Uutiset toimistomme uutiset Eversheds Sutherland expands global disputes platform asiakasuutiset Eversheds Sutherland advises on the acquisition of The Lake Como EDITION asiakasuutiset Eversheds Sutherland advises Clara Trustee on trio of UK superfund transactions asiakasuutiset Eversheds Sutherland advises RWE on sale of stake in Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Uusimmat Tapahtumat ja koulutukset hybriditapahtuma Europe Action Week 2026 etätapahtuma \| November 03, 2026 French employment law training etätapahtuma \| November 10, 2026 Dutch employment law training etätapahtuma \| November 11, 2026 Strategic absence management Tabs Label guides and reports 23. lokakuuta 2026 EU: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive legal updates 21. lokakuuta 2026 Navigating energy storage globally legal updates 21. lokakuuta 2026 Construction Projects in the GCC legal updates 21. lokakuuta 2026 Commercially Connected - October 2026 Lailliset huomautukset Käyttöehdot Tietosuojaseloste Evästekäytäntö Etämyynti Whistleblowing LinkedIn YouTube Sosiaalinen media Ota yhteyttä Kirjaudu asiakkaana Kirjaudu työntekijänä Tilaa Yritys Yritys Tavoitteet ja arvot Vastuullisuus Alumni Julkaisut Asiakastyökalut Tapahtumat ja koulutukset Puheenaiheet Urapolku Sivustokartta Toimistot © Eversheds Sutherland 2026. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information about these entities and Eversheds Sutherlands' structure please see the Legal Notice page of this website. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client. For further information about these Eversheds Sutherland Entities and Eversheds Sutherlands’ structure please see the Legal Notices page of this website.

On 3 November 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (SAC) dismissed the appeal filed by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) concerning legal costs in a competition law case. The case related to alleged prohibited cooperation in the market for plastic infrastructure pipes in Finland and involved several pipe manufacturers and wholesalers.

After a lengthy investigation and court proceedings, in August 2024 the Market Court rejected the FCCA’s proposal for the imposition of fines, finding that the authority had not presented sufficient evidence to support its allegations. The Market Court also ordered the FCCA to reimburse part of the companies’ legal costs.

The FCCA did not appeal the Market Court’s decision on the substance of the case but sought to overturn the ruling on legal costs. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Market Court’s decision and further ordered the FCCA to compensate part of the companies’ costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before the SAC.

We successfully represented Pipelife Finland Oy throughout the process – from the FCCA’s surprise inspection to the Supreme Administrative Court’s final decision – over a period of more than nine years.

Our team consisted of Partner Niina Rosenlund, Partner Olli Hyvönen, Counsel Heidi Markus, Associate Vivian Villa, and Associate Alex Niva.

Eversheds Sutherland takes all reasonable care to ensure that the materials, information and documents, including but not limited to articles, newsletters, reports and blogs (""Materials"") on the Eversheds Sutherland website are accurate and complete. However, the Materials are provided for general information purposes only, not for the purpose of providing legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the present law or regulations. The Materials should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.

The Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. The content and interpretation of the Materials and the law addressed in the Materials are subject to revision.

No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the Materials and therefore the Materials should not be relied upon. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of the Materials to the fullest extent permitted by law. The Materials are not intended to be comprehensive or to include advice on which you may rely. You should always consult a suitably qualified Lawyer/Attorney on any specific legal matter.

Any views expressed through the Materials are the views of the individual author and may not reflect the views of Eversheds Sutherland or any other individual Lawyer/Attorney.