The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO:2020:11, in Finnish) deemed that when the legal form of a foreign enterprise corresponds with a limited company as set forth in section 3(1)(1) of the Trade Register Act, it should be considered as the contractor as intended under section 3(1) of the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out. The Occupational Safety and Health Authority has the right to oblige the company at the risk of a fine to provide a list of the companies with whom the company has signed an agreement on temporary agency work or a subcontracting agreement for work to be conducted in Finland. An obligation to provide information could be imposed in order to ascertain whether a foreign contracting company was engaging in operations in Finland belonging to the scope of application of the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out. 

In its ruling (KHO:2017:175, in Finnish), the Supreme Administrative Court deemed that the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out was applied to international freight transport services only in the extent that the services are being implemented in Finland. Also when assessing the exceeding of the threshold when to apply the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out and assessing the amount of the negligence fee, examination should only be directed at the part of the total value of the subcontracting agreement on transport services allocated to work conducted in Finland. 

In its ruling (KHO:2017:135, in Finnish), the Supreme Administrative Court deemed that the arising of the contractor’s obligation to check shall not be assessed work-performance or work-site specifically. Thus, when assessing the exceeding of the threshold when to apply the Act, the work performances in the contractor’s various work sites running back to back or with only brief interruptions are taken into consideration. It is of no consequence in the matter, that no framework agreement or equivalent arrangements have been made with the subcontractor. The contractor’s obligation to check arises when the limit value intended in section 4(1)(2) of the said Act is exceeded for the first time during the subcontracting relationship on the basis of the cumulative value of the remuneration invoiced for separate work performances. 

In its ruling (KHO 17.1.2017/130, in Finnish), the Supreme Administrative Court stated that pursuant to the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out, the contractor must obtain, in situations laid down by law, information and reports on its contracting partner on the basis of which the contractor can assess the reliability of the partner. When the contractor is assessing the reliability of its contracting partner, the factor whether the information provided by the contracting partner is genuine must be considered as significant. This is why the contractor must verify the authenticity of the obtained document, if there is cause to suspect its authenticity. Because A Oy had accepted documents as required reports despite having suspicion on the authenticity of the documents, A Oy had neglected its obligation to check pursuant to section 5 of the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out. 

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled (KHO 2013:191, in Finnish) that the contractor was considered to have neglected its obligation to check pursuant to the Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted Out, when, in a labour-intensive sector and being aware of the possibility of the subcontractor’s employee turnover, it had not taken into consideration in the agreement that the turnover causes a need for the subcontractor to obtain E 101/A1 certificates also for new employees.

Pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO 2011:104, in Finnish), the entries made in the official registers did not as such provide evidence on the operations being of an established nature, but that the contractor needed to assess the matter on the basis of actual engagement in operations.