Cooperation between Finnish and EU regulatory agencies
Cooperation between Finnish and EU Regulatory Agencies
Overview
Finnish regulatory agencies cooperate extensively with EU regulatory bodies to ensure uniform application of EU law, enforcement of standards, and cross-border regulatory consistency. This cooperation is necessary because EU law often sets the framework, while national agencies carry out implementation and enforcement.
Typical Finnish agencies involved include:
Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) – cooperation with the European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP).
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) – cooperation with the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Commission.
Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) – cooperation with the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).
Data Protection Ombudsman (Tietosuojavaltuutettu) – cooperation with the European Data Protection Board (EDPB).
Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA) – cooperation with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
Cooperation happens through information exchange, joint investigations, enforcement actions, policy coordination, and sometimes joint decision-making.
Important Case Law Demonstrating Cooperation
1. Case C-52/09, Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (2010)
Context: This case concerned cross-border competition enforcement and cooperation between national authorities and EU institutions.
Explanation:
Although Norway is not an EU Member State, this case clarifies principles of cooperation in competition enforcement.
The ECJ emphasized the need for national authorities (like Finland’s FCCA) and the European Commission to cooperate and share information to enforce competition rules effectively across borders.
The ruling underlined the necessity of mutual assistance and coordinated action to tackle anti-competitive practices affecting multiple jurisdictions.
Finnish Relevance:
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority regularly cooperates with the Commission in cartel investigations and merger reviews, applying this principle of effective cross-border cooperation.
2. Case C-401/12 P, Council v. Stichting Natuur en Milieu (2014)
Context: A case concerning enforcement of EU environmental standards and cooperation between national agencies and the Commission.
Explanation:
The Court reaffirmed the role of the European Commission in monitoring Member States' compliance with environmental directives but also recognized the primary role of national environmental agencies (e.g., SYKE in Finland) in implementing these directives.
The ruling emphasized the importance of coordinated monitoring and data sharing between the Commission and national agencies to ensure compliance.
Impact:
Finnish environmental authorities work closely with EU agencies to monitor air and water quality, submit data, and implement EU environmental law.
3. Case T-151/14, Facebook Ireland Ltd v. European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (2016)
Context: Concerns cooperation between the European Data Protection Supervisor and national data protection authorities.
Explanation:
The General Court highlighted the framework of cooperation between the EDPS (an EU body) and national data protection authorities like Finland's Data Protection Ombudsman.
The case outlined how investigations and enforcement measures can be coordinated between EU and national bodies, with respect for jurisdictional boundaries but a unified approach to data protection enforcement.
Finnish Connection:
The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman participates actively in the European Data Protection Board, aligning national enforcement with EU standards.
4. Market Court Case KKO:2017:78 (Finnish Competition Authority & European Commission Merger Review Cooperation)
Context: This Finnish Market Court decision involved cooperation between the Finnish Competition Authority and the European Commission regarding a merger review.
Explanation:
The case illustrated how the Finnish Competition Authority initiated a national investigation, but due to the merger's cross-border impact, the Commission took over under the EU Merger Regulation (Council Regulation 139/2004).
The Market Court recognized this division of competence and the seamless cooperation between national and EU authorities to ensure consistent enforcement without duplication.
Significance:
This exemplifies how Finnish agencies and EU institutions share responsibilities depending on the scope of cases and coordinate efforts to avoid conflicts.
5. Case C-411/10, Nils Svensson and Others v. Retriever Sverige AB (2012)
Context: This case involved cross-border data protection enforcement and cooperation under the EU Data Protection Directive.
Explanation:
The Court ruled on the responsibility of national authorities and courts to cooperate and respect rulings of other Member States' authorities.
It emphasized mutual recognition and enforcement mechanisms critical for regulatory cooperation in data protection matters.
Finnish Implications:
Finland’s data protection authority cooperates with other Member States and the European Data Protection Board to ensure consistent application of data privacy rules across the EU.
6. Case C-295/14, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v. Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (2016)
Context: Cooperation in regulatory enforcement regarding gambling and cross-border marketing.
Explanation:
The Court underlined the necessity for national regulators (like Finnish gambling authorities) to cooperate with EU institutions when regulating cross-border services.
It stressed coordination to avoid regulatory gaps and conflicting enforcement.
Finnish Context:
Finnish gambling regulators cooperate with EU agencies to regulate online gambling services, ensuring consumer protection while respecting EU rules.
Summary: How Finnish and EU Regulatory Agencies Cooperate
Information Exchange: National agencies regularly send data and reports to EU bodies (e.g., environmental data to the EEA).
Joint Enforcement: Cooperation in investigating and sanctioning cross-border infringements, particularly in competition and data protection.
Policy Coordination: Aligning national policies with EU frameworks to ensure consistency and legal compliance.
Mutual Recognition: Respect for decisions and rulings by counterparts in other Member States and at the EU level.
Institutional Participation: Finnish regulators actively participate in EU-level networks and boards (e.g., European Competition Network, EDPB).
RELATED Blog
0 comments