09.11.2020 Author:

The law office Aasa-Law Ltd has assisted the The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA) in the Oulu district court, in the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court in the years 2007-2019 for the financial crime and matter of compensation for damage to the Riihi foundation.

The housing fund of the government has granted ARAVA and interest subsidy loans to the real estate company owned by the Riihi foundation in the years 1995-2001. It is about a procedure in which the public authority has been given false information and the public authority has been deceived financial support to activity that has not been purposed and the public authority does not even have a right to grant the support. By giving false information, it has had a significant effect on granting of the assistance.

The legal proceeding in question has been demanding and wide. The case entirety of the Riihi foundation is the biggest economic offense matter proceeding in the area of Oulu and Northern-Finland.

The Supreme Court gave its sentence to the matter at 25.5.2012. In this sentence, the Supreme Court accepted the statement of the reason presented by the ARA and ARA’s own summary penal orders on part of the forwarding loan of Arava- and interest subsidy loan assets. This matter has a common import. The common principles of the court decision impact other grants and support of the state, municipal and other common communities.

ARA has also presented compensation for damage claims of the size of 3,6 million euros. The damage done to the ARA is in its entirety credited interest paid to the real estate office and the investment expense to the government on the part of the Arava loan. Damages are demanded from the previous Riihi foundation board president Toivo Kanninen.

The Supreme Court awarded compensation for damage to ARA 6.2.2019. Toivo Kanninen was ordered to pay damages worth approximately 5 million euros including interest on delayed payments.

Aasa-Law assists with issues that are related to financial crimes and compensations for damages. We have years of experience acting on the behalf of both plaintiffs and suspects.

This matter was taken care of by advocate Simo Ellilä.

09.11.2020 Author:

In December 2017, the Helsinki Court of Appeal handed down a judgment on the violation of a business secret. The case concerned two former employees and the former owner of Tarha-Tuote Ltd, who were sentenced to imprisonment. At the same time, they were ordered to pay substantial damages. Tarha-Tuote Ltd is an import and wholesale company.

According to the Court of Appeal, the former employees and the former owner copied Tarha-Tuote Ltd’s business to its most profitable core. The defendants had begun to import and sell the products that had the best demand and the best sales margin. The defendants had detailed information on the business of Tarha-Tuote Ltd.

The competitive advantage of Tarha-Tuote Ltd was based on the utilization of data related to the acquisition and sales of product chain. This information Tarha-Tuote Ltd has received as a result of years of development work. Tarha-Tuote Ltd has purchased information concerning supplier and customer relationships through several business trades. The respondents directly copied those acquisition and sales chains of Tarha-Tuote Ltd’s products, which accounted for almost half of the net sales of Tarha-Tuote Ltd and which the profitability of Tarha-Tuote Ltd’s sales was largely based on. The business of Tarha-Tuote Ltd has later been transferred to Schetelig Ltd’s ownership.

Pursuant to Chapter 30, Section 11 of the Criminal Code, a business secret refers to a business or professional secret that and entrepreneur keeps secret and the disclosure of which would be conductive to causing financial loss. The definition of a business secret also requires that the information holder has both the will and the interests to keep the information undisclosed and that information is factually kept secret.

The Helsinki Court of Appeal considered that the defendants were guilty of the violation of a business secret. They were ordered to compensate for the damage suffered by Schetelig Ltd as a result of the loss of the sales margin over two years. Aasa-Law successfully represented Tarha-Tuote Ltd in the Court of Appeal.

Aasa-Law assist with the issues that are related to the protection of business secrets, to the drawing up a non-disclosure agreement or possible misuse of business secret. We also have expertise in a situation where a person or a company is groundlessly suspected of the illegal use of the business secret.

09.11.2020 Author:

The Employment Contracts Act determines when an employer has the right to terminate an employment contract.

An employment contract may terminate at the employer’s initiative either as a result of dismissal or cancellation of the employment. The employer has the right to terminate an indefinitely valid employment contract (permanent contract) only with proper and weighty reason. Reason for termination can be related either to the employee’s person or related to financial and production reasons.

The employee’s own proceeding entitles the employer to terminate the employment when the employee has seriously breached or neglected obligations that have essential impact on the employment relationship (Employment contracts act 7:2 §). The sphere of the regulation includes the worker’s delays, dishonesty and carelessness. Also, the fact that an employee can no longer cope with his or her assignments can justify dismissal. Termination of an employment contract requires that the employer has first issued a warning to the employee and allowed the employee to rectify its proceedings. No warning is required only if the case is particularly harmful.

The employer may terminate the employment contract if the work to be offered has diminished substantially and permanently for financial or production-related reasons or for reasons arising from the reorganization of the employer’s operations (Employment contracts act 7:3 §). The so-called collective ground may appear for example if the employer has a need to save costs or as a result of merging or termination of duties. The termination is permitted even if the employer’s business is profitable. However, if the employee can be placed in or trained for other job tasks the employer shall primarily offer that work.

Cancellation of the employment contract is much more severe and exceptional way of ending an employment contract. The employer is only upon an extremely weighty cause entitled to cancel an employment contract with an immediate effect regardless of the applicable period of notice or the duration of the employment contract (Employment contracts act 8:1§). Such a cause may be deemed to exist in case the employee commits a breach against or neglects duties in such a serious manner as to render it unreasonable to expect that the employer should continue the contractual relationship even for the period of notice.

Before ending an employment contract, the employer shall provide the employee with an opportunity to be heard regarding the grounds of the cancellation. The employee is entitled to use an assistant.

Several openly interpretable questions are connected with the ending of the employment. It is strongly recommendable to exercise due caution when terminating an employment contract as groundless termination or cancellation may lead to a notable liability for damages.

Law office Aasa-Law Oy have special expertise on all forms of termination of the employment. Aasa-Law oy advise clients on assignments relating to Finnish employment legislation.

We provide services to individual people and companies. Contact us, we're happy to help!