🇫🇮 Finland

1. The status of digitalisation in enforcement of the judgments under the regulation in question

(a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

There are no specific procedural rules exclusively governing the European Order for Payment (EOP) or the European Enforcement Order (EEO). Both procedures are therefore subject to the same national rules applicable to the use of digital tools in enforcement proceedings and before courts. Submission of an Enforcement Application An application for enforcement can be submitted through two main channels:

• Online electronic system (browser-based)
• Requires strong electronic identification.
• A wide range of European identification methods is accepted, including those

available to foreign applicants.

• Applicants must provide detailed information about the decision to be enforced (such

as decision number, registration number, date, and issuing authority).

• While the system may accept provisional or incomplete data, the enforcement

authority will request corrections or additional information if needed.

• Submission by email
• No strict formal requirements apply to the format of the application.
• However, all mandatory information must be included, such as identification of the

applicant and their lawyer (if any), available information on the defendant, details of the claim, and identification of the enforceable decision.

• The enforcement authority provides application templates in English.

Supporting Documents and Procedure Regardless of the submission method, the application must include a copy of the original judgment, or, where applicable, the European Order for Payment or the EEO certificate. Documents can be submitted electronically, although the authority may request the original if there is a suspicion of manipulation. Once the application is filed, the enforcement process is conducted ex officio and does not require the physical presence of the applicant. Communication with the enforcement officer can take place via email, provided the applicant has opted in to electronic correspondence during the filing process. In some cases, the enforcement authority may hold a hearing to obtain the creditor's views. These hearings are usually conducted by phone or email, and physical attendance is rarely required. Digital Communication Tools The electronic application system also offers limited messaging functionalities to facilitate communication and clarify issues during the filing phase. However, it is not considered an official service address. Its role in enforcement-related communication is expected to expand in the future.

Procedural aspects

2. Competent court or authority and procedure involved in the enforcement (a) under EOP

Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation Applicable Legal Framework There are no specific national rules governing the determination of the competent authority or the procedure leading to enforceability under the European Order for Payment (EOP) or the European Enforcement Order (EEO). These aspects are fully regulated by the EOP and EEO Regulations themselves. Once a decision becomes enforceable, enforcement in Finland is governed by the Enforcement Code, which applies equally to national judgments, EOPs, and EEOs. Competent Authority Enforcement in Finland operates as a state monopoly. All enforcement actions are carried out by a single public authority: the National Enforcement Authority. The claimant must submit an application for enforcement. This can be done:

• through an electronic enforcement service (requiring strong electronic identification),
• by email, or
• by traditional written letter.

The application must include a copy of the enforceable title, namely the original judgment or, in cross-border cases, the EOP or the EEO certificate. Documents may be submitted electronically, although the enforcement authority may request the original document if there is a suspicion of manipulation. The EOP is immediately enforceable, and Finnish law does not require the creditor to provide security, a bond, or a deposit for the enforcement of either an EOP or an EEO. After the application is submitted, enforcement officers act ex officio and will contact the applicant only if additional information is required. Further practical information is available on the website of the National Enforcement Authority, which provides:

• access to the electronic enforcement service,
• enforcement application templates in English (PDF format),
• and an English translation of the Enforcement Code.

More detailed legal analysis is available in specialised literature, primarily in Finnish.

3. rules on service

Rules on Service of Documents General Principles The rules on service are primarily set out in Chapter 11 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (CJP). As a general rule, courts are responsible for arranging service, which is carried out by court- appointed bailiffs. Finnish law allows for all service methods provided under the EOP and EEO Regulations, without imposing additional national requirements. No additional fees are charged for service when it is carried out as part of court proceedings, as is the case for the EOP procedure. Service in Enforcement Proceedings Once enforcement proceedings have been initiated, the enforcement officer is responsible for serving documents related to enforcement, including documents served after an EOP or EEO has become enforceable. Methods of Service When service is arranged by the court, documents may be served:

• by post with acknowledgment of receipt,
• by ordinary letter, where it can reasonably be assumed that the addressee will receive the

document and return the certificate of service,

• by electronic means, in accordance with the Act on Electronic Services and

Communication in the Public Sector. Under electronic service rules, the authority notifies the party that a document is available via a designated electronic link. Service is deemed completed once the document has been retrieved, following secure electronic identification. A simplified form of service by ordinary post (deemed effective seven days after posting) is permitted only if the address has been explicitly provided to the court in the same proceedings. This method is not applicable to ex parte procedures, such as EOP or EEO proceedings. Personal and Substitute Service If service cannot be completed using ordinary methods, or if there are serious grounds to believe it will not succeed, personal service by a process server is used. If the addressee cannot be located and appears to be evading service, documents may be delivered to:

• an adult household member,
• an employee at the addressee's place of business, or
• a local police authority.

In such cases, the addressee must also be informed by letter sent to their home address. Service Abroad If documents are to be served abroad and the address is known, service by the court is carried out only by mail. The party benefiting from service is responsible for identifying the address. The court may also delegate service to the claimant or the defendant, who may then arrange service abroad independently, including through official or commercial service providers.

3. Language of the certificate and documents to be appended

There are no specific rules regarding EOP or EEO, so the general rules apply to both. The district courts operate in Finnish, Swedish, or Sámi and any documents need to in these languages. A party who does not speak Finnish, Swedish or Sámi and who wants interpretation or translation shall arrange this herself and at her own expense unless the court, with consideration to the nature of the matter, orders otherwise (CJP 4:2). The use of Sámi language is rare and subject to additional requirements under kielilaki (423/2003). The national law (754/2008 9 § and 825/2005 4 §) rules on translations required for enforcement. A European order for payment is accepted for enforcement in Finland only if it has been issued in Finnish, Swedish or English, or if an a translation in one of these languages is annexed to the order. The claimant seeking enforcement is responsible for providing the translation at their own expense.

5. enforcement fees

Fees apply both to the enforcement procedure and to any subsequent civil proceedings if the defendant lodges an opposition. Court Fees Following Opposition (EOP) Under Article 25 of the EOP Regulation, court fees charged for civil proceedings following an opposition may not exceed the standard costs of ordinary civil proceedings. Any court fee already paid for the EOP procedure must therefore be deducted from the total court fees of the subsequent proceedings. In Finland, the current court fee for civil proceedings is EUR 610. If the judgment is appealed:

• the Court of Appeal charges an additional EUR 610, and
• the Supreme Court also charges EUR 610 if leave to appeal is sought.

Court fees are invoiced to the applicant after the application is filed and can be paid via bank transfer or MobilePay. Court Fees for EOP and EEO Applications The court charges:

• EUR 100 for submitting an application for a European Order for Payment (EOP), and
• EUR 37 for applying for a certificate of a European Enforcement Order (EEO).

These costs are initially borne by the creditor, but they may be recovered from the debtor during enforcement. To be enforceable, however, these costs must be explicitly included in an enforceable judgment, in accordance with:

• Article 7(2)(d) of the EOP Regulation, or
• Article 7 of the EEO Regulation.

Enforcement Fees Enforcement fees are calculated as a fixed percentage of each payment made to the creditor. Currently:

• 1.45% of each payment is retained as an enforcement fee.

If a single payment would result in a fee exceeding EUR 5,000, the fee is capped at EUR 5,000 per payment, regardless of the total amount recovered. These rules apply to all enforceable payment orders, including EOPs, EEOs, and national judgments. In addition, the debtor is required to pay a separate enforcement fee, which depends on the amount of the principal debt and ranges from EUR 2.50 to EUR 210.

4. Refusal, stay, or limitation of the enforcement procedure under the regulation in question in

the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Rules on refusal, stay, or limitation of enforcement are the same for both the European Order for Payment (EOP) and the European Enforcement Order (EEO). Refusal of Enforcement If the defendant applies for refusal of enforcement under Article 22 EOP or Article 21 EEO, the competent court is the District Court of Helsinki. The application is treated as a civil matter and can be filed digitally or in writing (email, fax, post, or courier). Proceedings are usually conducted as summary proceedings, based solely on written documents and without a hearing. The process can be carried out entirely online, and courts generally use email as the main communication channel. Stay or Limitation of Enforcement Applying for review does not automatically suspend enforcement. The defendant must separately apply for a stay or limitation. The decision is initially taken by the Chief Enforcement Officer, who has the authority-under the EOP and EEO framework-to:

• order a temporary or full stay, or
• impose a partial limitation of enforcement (e.g. limiting amounts or enforcement measures).

A stay may apply only to part of the claim or to specific enforcement actions (such as allowing attachment but prohibiting sale). Enforcement officers have broad discretion in shaping these measures. Judicial Review and Safeguards Decisions on stay or limitation can be appealed to the District Court, which may also order a stay if continuing enforcement would make the appeal ineffective. In exceptional cases, the court may act ex officio. The court must decide on stay applications as quickly as possible and may:

• order the reversal of enforcement measures in exceptional circumstances,
• require the defendant to provide security or a bond to cover potential damage to the creditor.

Enforcement authorities may continue enforcement while the court is deciding, but in practice should suspend action to avoid undermining the appeal.

5. Availability of any legal aid for guidance on the enforcement procedures under the

regulation in question in the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Finland provides legal aid to natural persons who lack sufficient financial means to cover court or lawyer's fees. Legal aid is available to anyone domiciled in the EU under the Legal Aid Act, and it also applies to EOP and EEO proceedings. Eligibility and Scope Legal aid is granted based on a means test, which considers:

• income and assets,
• necessary living expenses, and
• maintenance obligations of the applicant and their partner.

Legal aid is available to individuals whose available monthly means do not exceed EUR 1,300. Depending on income, legal aid may cover 25% to 100% of legal costs. How to Apply Legal aid is administered by the National Legal Service Authority. Applications can be submitted through an online service, currently available only in Finnish and Swedish. The Legal Aid Service also provides:

• telephone consultations, and
• guidance from a legal aid secretary on whether legal representation is needed.

If necessary, a telephone meeting with a lawyer can be arranged.

6. Critical assessment of the enforcement procedures under the regulation in question in the

intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Finnish national law allows for more flexible methods of service than those permitted under the EOP and EEO Regulations. For example, national rules allow service by telephone or by public notice, but the EU Regulations restrict the use of these methods in cross-border procedures. Secure Email and Recent Case Law A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Finland (KKO 2024:45) addressed the use of secure email for service. In this case, the document was sent via a protected email system requiring a password, which was delivered separately by SMS. Once the email was opened, the system generated an automatic read receipt. The Court held that this read notification satisfied the legal requirement for proof of service. This interpretation significantly expands the potential use of secure electronic service by courts and other authorities. Despite this precedent, secure email is not yet widely used in practice, as courts and public authorities remain cautious due to concerns about legal certainty and liability. Nevertheless, the decision opens the door to broader adoption of secure electronic service methods, both at national level and potentially within the EU procedural framework.