Business Restraining Order in Finland: Court-Ordered Access Bans for Retail Premises
The draft Government proposal was open for comments from 4 June to 17 July 2026, and more than 45 organisations filed statements. The proposal is not uncontroversial: the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, among others, has questioned whether the rules are drafted precisely enough and whether the scope has been drawn correctly. This article sets out what the proposal contains, what the consultation round revealed, and what businesses operating retail premises in Finland should be doing before the law enters into force.
Key points
- New statute: Act on Court-Ordered Access Bans (laki tuomioistuimen määräämästä pääsykiellosta), project OM159:00/2023.
- Applicant: the trader; the ban would be imposed by a court.
- Target premises: a shop open to the public, plus an immediate vicinity specified in the court's decision. Pharmacies are excluded.
- Duration: a maximum of one year.
- Sanction: breaching the ban would carry a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.
- Enforcement: the police.
- Timetable: Government proposal to Parliament in autumn 2026; entry into force 1 June 2027.
What is the "business restraining order"?
The Finnish Government Programme committed to introducing what has been called a yrityslähestymiskielto, literally a "business restraining order". The drafters have chosen to implement it through a separate statute rather than by extending the existing Act on Restraining Orders, and the choice is well founded. A restraining order under the existing Act protects an identified natural person from another person's contact. The instrument now proposed protects a place — and, through that place, the staff and customers present in it.
According to the Ministry of Justice press release of 3 June 2026, the aim is to strengthen the safety of employees and customers by intervening in serious and repeated situations involving threats and violence. The Minister of Justice, Leena Meri, described the proposal as follows (unofficial translation):
"This is a new legal instrument for addressing disruptive behaviour in shops. The retail sector has to be a safe workplace for its staff."
The project has been under way since August 2024 and runs until 31 March 2027. A separate monitoring group was appointed on 2 June 2025 to oversee implementation.
On what grounds could an access ban be imposed?
The ban would be based on the person's earlier conduct and would operate as a preventive measure. Under the draft, an access ban could be imposed in respect of a shop available to the public in order to prevent an offence against life, health or liberty, the threat of such an offence, or other serious and repeated harassment (unofficial translation).
The threshold therefore operates on two levels. A single serious offence or a credible threat of one may suffice; alternatively, other harassment qualifies if it is both serious and repeated. An isolated shoplifting incident or a one-off argument at the till would not ordinarily meet the test. In practice, a successful application will require a documented pattern of conduct.
A ban could also be imposed on a minor, but this would call for particular consideration in order to safeguard the child's fundamental rights.
Content, geographic reach and duration
A person subject to the ban would have no right to enter the shop "or its immediate vicinity", as further specified in the decision on the matter (unofficial translation). The geographic reach would thus be determined case by case in the court's decision rather than fixed in the statute itself.
The ban could be imposed for a maximum of one year. This is a significant difference compared with an entry ban imposed by the trader itself, which under the draft could remain in force indefinitely.
Pharmacies are expressly excluded from the scope. The exclusion relates to access to medicines and healthcare services: an access ban must not result in a person being left without necessary medication.
Court procedure and the role of the police
The court would impose the ban on the application of the trader. Proceedings would therefore be commenced by the applicant rather than by a public authority. The draft contains provisions on, among other things, the expeditious handling of the matter and on the court fee, and the Act on Court Fees would be amended accordingly.
Enforcement would rest with the police. To that end, the Police Act and the Act on the Processing of Personal Data in Police Matters would be amended so that information on the ban can be recorded and used in enforcement. The Private Security Services Act would also be clarified as regards the powers of security guards and stewards.
Relationship to the trader's own entry ban — amendment of the Criminal Code
The proposal would not remove a trader's existing right to impose an entry ban on a disruptive individual. On the contrary: Chapter 24, Section 3 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises julkisrauhan rikkominen (invasion of public premises), would be clarified by expressly adding to the definition of the offence the act of entering premises protected by that provision contrary to a ban imposed on the person (unofficial translation). The amendment would resolve the current uncertainty as to whether breaching a trader-imposed entry ban is punishable at all.
In practice, a two-tier system would emerge:
| Trader-imposed entry ban | Court-ordered access ban | |
|---|---|---|
| Who imposes it | The trader itself | A court, on application |
| Duration | Indefinite | Maximum 1 year |
| Breach assessed as | Invasion of public premises (CC 24:3) | Breach of an access ban |
| Maximum penalty | Imprisonment up to 6 months | Imprisonment up to 1 year |
| Enforcement | The business itself, security guards | The police |
| Cost to the business | No official fee | Court fee and litigation costs |
Because the two instruments would exist side by side, court proceedings will normally be worth pursuing only once the lighter measure has proved insufficient. This is also one of the contested questions in the consultation feedback.
Consultation feedback: the Parliamentary Ombudsman on precision and scope
The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman issued its statement on 17 July 2026. It welcomes the clarification of the powers of the police, security guards and stewards to restrict access, an area where the present legal position is unclear. On substance, however, the statement is critical. Its principal observations are:
- The added value is not established. Existing law already allows a trader to impose an entry ban, and breaching it is punishable as invasion of public premises. The draft does not adequately explain what court proceedings would add.
- The scope is narrow and the boundary unclear. The rules would cover shops only, even though comparable problems arise in restaurants, shopping centres and other premises open to the public. Distinguishing a "shop" from other commercial space remains open to interpretation.
- "Immediate vicinity" without statutory criteria. If the geographic reach is left entirely to judicial discretion, the person subject to the ban cannot readily foresee where movement is prohibited. That is problematic under the requirement that restrictions on fundamental rights be precise and clearly delimited.
- Procedural weaknesses. The formulation "as the circumstances require" offers weaker guarantees of expeditious handling than the existing rules on urgent matters. The proposed wording on evidence also sits uneasily with the rules of evidence in the Code of Judicial Procedure.
- No retention periods for personal data. The draft proposes no express provisions on how long sensitive police data may be retained, which is problematic under the constitutional requirements on the protection of personal data.
By way of remedy, the statement proposes harmonising the terminology between Sections 3, 6 and 8 of the proposed Act, writing criteria governing geographic reach into the statute, adding an express obligation to erase data, and considering whether a procedural model better suited to the resolution of civil disputes would be more appropriate.
Why is this being proposed? The retail crime figures
The figures cited in the draft illustrate the scale of the problem in the Finnish retail sector:
- 56% of retail outlets had been the victim of theft offences.
- 17% of outlets had experienced violence or threats directed at an employee — of those acts, 90% were threats and 10% assaults.
- 6% of outlets had experienced repeated harassment or stalking directed at an employee.
- 2% of outlets had been subject to a robbery or attempted robbery.
The Finnish Commerce Federation has supported the proposal. Its leading specialist, Terhi Kuljukka-Rabb, has said that the bill responds to needs the retail sector has raised for a long time.
Timetable and what businesses should do now
The consultation round closed on 17 July 2026. The Government proposal is due to be submitted to Parliament in autumn 2026, and the proposed acts are intended to enter into force on 1 June 2027. The content may still change both in continued preparation and during the parliamentary process. One stage is worth watching in particular: in Finland, the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament reviews bills for constitutional compatibility before they are passed, and its assessment of the ban's geographic reach and of the personal data provisions may well reshape the final text.
Traders should prepare as follows:
- Build the documentation practice now. A successful application will require evidence of repeated and serious conduct. Incident reports, crime report numbers, camera footage retention periods and staff records need to be brought into a systematic form.
- Check the lawfulness of your recordings and records. Documentation means processing personal data. The legal basis, retention periods and information obligations should be reviewed before material is collected with an application in mind.
- Clarify your current entry ban practice. Once the Criminal Code provision is amended, how a ban is given and whether it can be evidenced will matter more than before. An oral ban with no record is a weak starting point.
- Review your security service contracts. The changes to the powers of security guards and stewards affect what can and should be required of a service provider under the contract.
- Assess the cost of the procedure. Court proceedings are heavier and chargeable compared with an entry ban. It is worth defining in advance the threshold at which an application will be made.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Finnish "business restraining order"?
It is the colloquial name for a Government Programme commitment that would be implemented through a new Act on Court-Ordered Access Bans. It is not an extension of the existing Act on Restraining Orders, but a separate instrument allowing a trader to apply to a court for an order preventing a named individual from entering a shop.
How long could an access ban last?
A maximum of one year. An entry ban imposed by the trader itself could, by contrast, remain in force indefinitely.
Which premises could an access ban cover?
A shop available to the public, together with an immediate vicinity specified in the court's decision. Pharmacies are excluded. Restaurants and shopping centres do not fall within the scope of the draft.
What is the penalty for breaching an access ban?
A fine or imprisonment for up to one year. Breaching a trader-imposed entry ban would be assessed as invasion of public premises, for which the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment.
Would the new law remove the trader's right to impose its own entry ban?
No. A trader would in principle retain the right to impose an entry ban itself. The Criminal Code provision on invasion of public premises would be clarified so that entering contrary to such a ban is expressly punishable.
When would the law enter into force?
The Government proposal is due in autumn 2026 and the acts would enter into force on 1 June 2027.
Can an access ban be imposed on a minor?
Under the draft yes, but it would require particular consideration in order to safeguard the child's fundamental rights.
How LKOS Law Office can help
We advise traders and holders of business premises on matters including:
- drafting documentation practices and internal guidance for incidents
- procedures and template wording for imposing entry bans
- data protection assessments for camera surveillance and incident records
- review of security and guarding service contracts
- preparing access ban applications and representation before the courts once the Act is in force
- assessment of occupational safety obligations in roles exposed to the threat of violence
- preparing consultation statements and advocacy submissions in legislative projects
We work in English, Finnish and Latvian.
Sources
- Ministry of Justice: Project Yrityslähestymiskielto, OM159:00/2023 (VN/26860/2023)
- Ministry of Justice, 3 June 2026: Draft act on the business restraining order out for comments
- Request for statements and draft Government proposal, 4 June 2026
- Statement of the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, 17 July 2026
Quotations from Finnish legislative material and from the Minister of Justice are our own unofficial translations; the Finnish text governs. This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on material available on 18 August 2026 and concerns a legislative project whose content may change in continued preparation and during the parliamentary process. We accept no liability for action taken on the basis of this article.
LKOS Law Office Oy
Töölönkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
office(at)lkoslaw.fi · Business ID 2666655-6