Finland's New Arbitration Act (2026): What Businesses and Litigators Need to Know

Finland is poised to overhaul its arbitration framework in the most significant legislative reform the jurisdiction has seen in decades. On 25 June 2026, the Government of Finland announced a proposal to replace the current Arbitration Act with a new statute grounded in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with the explicit objective of strengthening Finland’s position as a credible seat for international dispute resolution. The proposed new arbitration act in Finland removes the longstanding strict written-form requirement for arbitration agreements, expands tribunal powers over interim measures, and introduces modern provisions on competence-competence and arbitrator appointment.

For businesses with Finnish-law contracts, in-house counsel drafting arbitration clauses, and litigators managing cross-border disputes, the reform demands immediate attention, the new Act is scheduled to enter into force in spring 2027.

What Changed and Why It Matters, The Arbitration Act Finland Reform at a Glance

Finland’s current Arbitration Act dates from 1992 and, while functional, has increasingly lagged behind jurisdictions that adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law earlier. The government’s stated rationale is to modernise Finnish arbitration procedure, harmonise it with international best practice, and attract more international arbitrations to Finland. The reform is not a minor amendment, it is a comprehensive replacement of the existing statute.

At a glance, what the reform means for business:

• Writing requirement relaxed. The strict requirement that arbitration agreements must be “in writing” is replaced by a broader standard aligned with UNCITRAL Model Law Article 7 (Option I), permitting agreements evidenced by any exchange of communications that records the agreement.
• UNCITRAL Model Law adopted as the foundation. The new Act draws directly from the Model Law, including provisions on competence-competence (Article 16), interim measures (Articles 17–17J), and setting aside of awards (Article 34).
• Expanded tribunal powers. Arbitral tribunals gain explicit statutory authority to order interim measures and preliminary orders, reducing the need for parallel court proceedings.
• Modernised appointment and challenge procedures. The Act introduces clearer default appointment rules and an updated challenge mechanism for arbitrators, drawing on Model Law Articles 11–15.
• Spring 2027 entry into force. The government has indicated the Act will enter into force approximately six months after parliamentary passage, placing the target date in spring 2027.

Industry observers expect this reform to elevate Helsinki’s standing among top jurisdictions for international arbitration, particularly for Nordic and Baltic commercial disputes. The practical consequence for businesses and litigators is that arbitration clauses, template contracts, and procedural strategies need review now, before the new regime takes effect.

What the Reform Does: Legal Changes and UNCITRAL Model Law Alignment

The proposed legislation represents a structural departure from Finland’s 1992 Act. Rather than incremental updates, the government has opted to build the new statute on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, the internationally recognised framework already adopted (in whole or in part) by over 80 jurisdictions. Understanding the specific changes is essential for any party with an arbitration clause governed by Finnish law or seated in Finland.

Formal vs Substantive Changes

The most immediately visible change is the relaxation of the arbitration agreement writing requirement. Under the current Finnish Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement must be made in writing to be enforceable.

The reform replaces this with the UNCITRAL Model Law Article 7 (Option I) approach: an arbitration agreement is valid if it is “in writing,” but the definition of “in writing” is broadened to include any form that provides a record of the agreement, electronic communications, exchanges of statements of claim and defence in which one party alleges an agreement and the other does not deny it, or even a reference in a contract to a separate document containing an arbitration clause, provided the reference is such as to make the clause part of the contract.

This is a substantive liberalisation. Under the current Act, parties occasionally faced enforcement difficulties when arbitration clauses were agreed orally or through informal electronic exchanges. The likely practical effect will be to reduce the number of purely formal challenges to arbitration agreements in Finnish courts, while still providing a documentary threshold sufficient for enforcement purposes.

Model Law Provisions Adopted

The proposed Act incorporates key Model Law provisions, including:

• Article 7 (Option I), Form of arbitration agreement. Broadened definition of “in writing,” as discussed above.
• Article 8, Referral by courts. A court before which an action is brought in a matter subject to an arbitration agreement must refer the parties to arbitration, unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.
• Article 16, Competence-competence. The tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This codifies a principle already recognised in Finnish practice but gives it explicit statutory backing.
• Articles 17–17J, Interim measures and preliminary orders. The tribunal gains statutory power to grant interim measures (including orders to maintain the status quo, preserve assets, or prevent dissipation) and, where adopted, preliminary orders without notice. This is among the most practically significant changes for arbitration interim measures in Finland.
• Articles 34–36, Setting aside and enforcement. The grounds for setting aside and refusing recognition or enforcement of awards are drawn from the Model Law framework, harmonising Finnish practice with international norms.

New Tribunal Powers and Limits on Court Intervention

The reform clarifies the boundaries between tribunal and court authority. Under the new Act, Finnish courts retain a supportive role, assisting with the appointment of arbitrators when the parties’ agreed mechanism fails, and with the enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim measures, but the principle of minimal judicial intervention is codified. Courts may not review the merits of a dispute referred to arbitration, and may set aside awards only on the narrow grounds specified in the Act (mirroring Model Law Article 34). The Act also introduces provisions on arbitrator immunity and updated rules on joinder of third parties and consolidation of arbitrations, subject to party consent.

For parties accustomed to the formalities required under the current regime, particularly the strict writing requirement for arbitration agreements, these changes represent a meaningful shift. Industry observers note that the reform aligns Finland with Sweden, Denmark, and other Nordic jurisdictions that have already modernised their arbitration frameworks.

Timing, Entry Into Force and Transitional Rules Under the Arbitration Act Finland Reform

Understanding the reform timeline is critical for businesses deciding when to amend contract templates and for litigators managing pending disputes. The following timeline, drawn from the Government of Finland’s official announcement, summarises the key dates and their practical implications.

Transitional Rules: Existing Agreements and Pending Arbitrations

The government’s proposal includes transitional provisions intended to minimise disruption. The general approach, consistent with Model Law jurisdictions, is as follows:

• New arbitrations commenced after entry into force will be governed entirely by the new Act, regardless of when the underlying contract was signed.
• Pending arbitrations (those already commenced before the entry into force date) are expected to remain governed by the current Act, unless the parties agree otherwise.
• Existing arbitration agreements in contracts signed before entry into force will be assessed for validity under the law in effect at the time they were concluded, but procedural rules for new disputes will follow the new Act.
• Court proceedings ancillary to arbitration (enforcement applications, setting-aside actions) commenced after entry into force will be governed by the new Act’s procedural provisions.

The practical implication is straightforward: parties with existing contracts containing Finnish-seat arbitration clauses do not need to re-execute those clauses, but should review whether their clause language remains optimal under the new framework. For pending arbitrations, no automatic change occurs, the current Act continues to apply unless both parties consent to the new regime.

Drafting Arbitration Clauses Under the New Arbitration Act Finland, Practical Playbook

This section provides the actionable guidance that in-house counsel and contracting managers need most: how to draft or amend an arbitration clause that is both enforceable under the new Act and strategically sound.

Core Clause Essentials

Every arbitration clause in Finland should address the following elements, regardless of whether the dispute is domestic or international:

Model Clause Templates

The following three templates reflect current best practice and are designed to be enforceable under the new arbitration act in Finland. They draw on the model clauses published by the Finland Arbitration Institute and incorporate adjustments for the reform.

Template 1, Domestic disputes (Finnish-language parties):

“Kaikki tästä sopimuksesta aiheutuvat tai siihen liittyvät riidat ratkaistaan lopullisesti välimiesmenettelyssä Suomen Välimiesmenettelysääntöjen mukaisesti. Välimiesoikeus koostuu yhdestä välimiehestä. Välimiesmenettelyn paikka on Helsinki, Suomi. Välimiesmenettelyn kieli on suomi.”

Template 2, International disputes (English-language):

“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this contract, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Finland Arbitration Institute. The number of arbitrators shall be three. The seat of arbitration shall be Helsinki, Finland. The language of the arbitration shall be English.”

Template 3, Hybrid clause with emergency interim relief:

“Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be finally resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Finland Arbitration Institute. The number of arbitrators shall be one, unless the amount in dispute exceeds EUR 1,000,000, in which case the dispute shall be resolved by three arbitrators. The seat of arbitration shall be Helsinki, Finland. The language of the arbitration shall be English. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for interim or conservatory measures at any time prior to, during, or after the arbitral proceedings.”

Special Drafting Points: The Relaxed Writing Requirement

Because the arbitration agreement writing requirement is being broadened, parties should consider the following drafting adjustments:

• Confirm in writing anyway. Although the new Act will accept oral or informal agreements evidenced by a record, best practice is to include the arbitration clause in the signed contract, even when agreed electronically. This eliminates any future evidential disputes.
• Email confirmation protocol. Where contracts are concluded by exchange of emails, ensure that the email thread clearly references and incorporates the arbitration clause. A reply stating “agreed” to a message containing the clause will satisfy the new standard.
• Incorporation by reference. Where the arbitration clause is in a separate document (such as general terms and conditions), the reference in the main contract must be sufficiently specific to make the clause part of the contract. A generic reference to “our standard terms” may not suffice, name the document and the clause.
• Electronic signatures. The new Act does not require wet-ink signatures. Qualified electronic signatures (under eIDAS) and even simple electronic signatures accompanied by a clear record will satisfy the formal requirements. Nonetheless, for high-value contracts, a qualified electronic signature provides the strongest evidential position.

Emergency Interim Relief Language

Under the reform, arbitral tribunals in Finland will have expanded statutory power to grant interim measures. However, there is always a gap between the moment a dispute arises and the moment the tribunal is constituted. To address this, include a carve-out permitting applications to courts for urgent relief:

“Nothing in this arbitration clause shall preclude any party from seeking interim or conservatory relief from a court of competent jurisdiction pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or, thereafter, with the tribunal’s authorisation.”

This language ensures enforceability of court-ordered asset freezes, injunctions, and evidence-preservation orders during the pre-tribunal window, consistent with the new Act’s provisions on court support.

Seat of Arbitration Finland: Selection and Interim Measures, A Practical Decision Framework

Why the Seat Matters Now

The seat of arbitration determines the procedural law governing the arbitration (the lex arbitri), the courts that can supervise and support the process, and the enforcement framework for awards and interim measures. Under the new Act, choosing Finland, and specifically Helsinki, as the seat will give parties access to the reformed, Model Law-aligned procedural framework, enhanced tribunal powers over interim measures, and a judiciary experienced in commercial dispute resolution.

Helsinki vs Other Seats: Comparison

Interim Measures: Tribunal Power vs Court Power

Under the new Act, the tribunal can grant interim measures including orders to maintain or restore the status quo, prevent actions likely to cause harm or prejudice, preserve assets, and preserve evidence. The tribunal’s power is broad but subject to one practical limitation: the tribunal cannot compel compliance by non-parties. For measures binding on third parties (such as freezing orders directed at banks), a court order remains necessary.

Early indications suggest that the reformed framework for arbitration interim measures in Finland will operate as follows:

• Before tribunal constitution: Parties apply to the Helsinki District Court or, if institutional rules permit, to an emergency arbitrator under the FAI Rules.
• After tribunal constitution: The tribunal issues interim measures directly; court enforcement available on application.
• Cross-border enforcement: Tribunal-ordered interim measures can be enforced by Finnish courts against assets in Finland; enforcement abroad depends on the receiving jurisdiction’s law and applicable treaties.

For businesses seeking urgent relief, for example, asset-freezing orders to prevent dissipation, a Finnish seat under the new Act offers a streamlined path. The combination of tribunal power and court enforcement reduces the risk of jurisdictional gaps that can arise in less integrated systems.

Enforcement of Awards and Foreign Measures in Finland

Finland is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which remains the primary legal basis for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Finland. The new Act aligns Finland’s domestic enforcement provisions with the Model Law framework (Articles 35–36), creating a harmonised regime for both domestic and foreign awards.

Enforcing Foreign Interim Measures and Awards

Under the current Act, enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Finland follows the New York Convention procedure: the party seeking enforcement files an application with the competent Finnish district court, attaching the original award (or a certified copy) and the arbitration agreement. The court may refuse enforcement only on the limited grounds specified in the Convention (including incapacity, lack of notice, excess of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, and public policy).

The new Act does not change the New York Convention framework, it remains the primary route to enforce arbitral awards in Finland. However, the reform introduces explicit provisions for recognition and enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim measures, drawing on Model Law Article 17H. This fills a gap in the current regime, where the enforceability of interim measures ordered by foreign-seated tribunals was uncertain.

Practical Steps to Enforce Awards in Finland

• Step 1: Obtain a certified copy of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement.
• Step 2: File an enforcement application with the competent Finnish district court (typically the Helsinki District Court for international awards).
• Step 3: Serve the application on the respondent, who may oppose enforcement on New York Convention grounds only.
• Step 4: Await the court’s decision, Finnish courts typically resolve enforcement applications within a few months absent contested proceedings.
• Step 5: Upon recognition, enforce the award through the standard Finnish enforcement system (Ulosottolaitos).

Checklist for Foreign Parties

• Confirm that the award qualifies as a “foreign arbitral award” under the New York Convention.
• Ensure the arbitration agreement satisfies the Convention’s formal requirements (the new Act’s broadened definition of “in writing” does not override the Convention’s separate requirements for recognition).
• Prepare certified translations of all documents into Finnish or Swedish if not already in either language.
• Engage Finnish counsel early, local representation is not formally mandatory for enforcement applications, but is strongly advisable to navigate procedural and evidentiary requirements.
• Monitor the enforceability landscape: parties relying on the new Act’s interim measure enforcement provisions should verify whether the relevant Finnish court has interpreted the new provisions.

Transitional and Remedial Checklist for In-House Counsel

With the new arbitration act Finland reform scheduled for spring 2027, in-house counsel and contracting managers should act now. The following prioritised checklist provides a practical roadmap.

1. Audit existing contracts. Identify all contracts containing Finnish-seat arbitration clauses. Categorise them by expiry date, renewal terms, and dispute likelihood. Prioritise high-value or high-risk agreements for immediate review.
2. Review and amend standard arbitration clause templates. Update template language to reflect the model clauses set out above. Ensure every template specifies the seat, number of arbitrators, language, and applicable institutional rules.
3. Add emergency interim relief language. Insert a carve-out permitting court applications for urgent interim measures pending tribunal constitution. This is especially important for contracts with asset-intensive counterparties.
4. Verify the arbitration agreement’s form. Although the writing requirement is being relaxed, ensure that all existing and future agreements contain a clear documentary record. For contracts concluded by email, confirm that the exchange clearly records the arbitration agreement.
5. Notify counterparties if necessary. Where template amendments require counterparty consent (e.g., in ongoing framework agreements), initiate discussions early to avoid disputes about applicable procedural rules.
6. Advise on pending arbitrations. For arbitrations already commenced, confirm that the current Act continues to apply unless both parties consent to the new regime. Do not assume automatic transition.
7. Coordinate with litigation strategy. Assess whether any disputes currently in court should be redirected to arbitration under the new framework, or whether existing court proceedings should be concluded before the new Act takes effect.
8. Engage Finnish dispute resolution counsel. For complex portfolios or ongoing disputes, consult with experienced Finnish litigators to evaluate the transitional rules and optimise clause strategy for the new regime.

This checklist can serve as the basis for an internal compliance memo or board-level briefing. The key message is that proactive review, before the Act enters into force, avoids costly ambiguity about which procedural framework governs a given dispute.

Conclusion: Preparing for Finland’s Arbitration Act Finland Reform

The proposed new arbitration act Finland represents a generational modernisation of Finnish dispute resolution law. By adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law, Finland is aligning itself with the international mainstream and providing businesses, arbitrators, and litigators with a procedural framework that is clearer, more flexible, and more attractive to international parties than its 1992 predecessor. The relaxation of the writing requirement, the expansion of tribunal powers over interim measures, and the codification of competence-competence address the most significant practical shortcomings of the current regime.

For businesses with Finnish-law contracts or Finnish-seat arbitration clauses, the priority is clear: audit existing agreements, update template clauses, and ensure that emergency interim relief language and seat selection are optimised for the new framework. For litigators and arbitrators, the reform offers new tools, particularly on interim measures and injunctive relief, that will shape how disputes are managed from the outset. Acting now, before the spring 2027 entry into force, is the most effective way to ensure that your arbitration strategy is ready for Finland’s reformed landscape.

Sources

1. Finlex, Arbitration Act (current text and translations)
2. Valtioneuvosto (Government of Finland), New Arbitration Act announcement
3. UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
4. Ministry of Justice, Finland (Oikeusministeriö)
5. Finland Arbitration Institute (FAI)
6. UN Treaty Collection, New York Convention (1958)