Alcohol Act amendments made in committee support the health of people in Finland: changes must be notified to the EU before the plenary session

09.06.2026 - The Finnish Association for Substance Abuse Prevention EHYT considers the amendments made by Parliament’s Social Affairs and Health Committee to the Alcohol Act proposal to be steps in the right direction. The Committee limited cross-border distance selling to the same alcohol-content limits that apply to domestic retail sales, meaning beverages of no more than 8.0% and 5.5% alcohol by volume. It also tightened tax supervision of distance selling and introduced a minimum 24-hour delay between ordering alcohol and home delivery.

The amendments partly respond to the public health and economic concerns raised by the Government’s original proposal. On 9 June 2026, EHYT sent a letter to the European Commission asking it to draw the attention of the Finnish authorities to the notification obligation and to state whether the Committee’s amendments require a new notification before the bill is adopted.

Under the Government’s original proposal, cross-border distance selling would also have allowed the purchase of alcoholic beverages much stronger than the domestic retail sales limits, up to 80% alcohol by volume. Unlike distance purchasing, where the consumer is responsible for arranging the transport of the product, in distance selling the seller arranges delivery to the buyer. In practice, this would have meant that a foreign online store could have delivered even strong alcoholic beverages directly to people’s doorsteps in Finland. The percentage limits that apply to domestic operators (8.0% and 5.5%) would not have applied to this sales channel from abroad.

The Committee majority limited distance selling to the same percentage limits that apply to domestic retail sales. EHYT considers this the most important public health correction in the reform. Distance selling of strong alcoholic beverages would have increased alcohol availability and, in practice, created a competing sales channel to the public health-based monopoly system without sufficient impact assessments. In practice, this would have contradicted the Government Programme’s commitment to safeguard Alko’s public health role and position.

EHYT also regrets that the preparation of the proposal did not take into account the unanimous statement approved by Parliament in 2017 (EV 186/2017 vp), according to which solutions concerning distance selling must not endanger the retail sales monopoly for stronger alcoholic beverages or the equal treatment of Finnish businesses in relation to foreign competitors. The amendments made by the Committee bring the proposal back in line with Parliament’s own earlier position.

Tax supervision and fair competition

EHYT also considers the Committee’s stricter tax supervision measures important. According to estimates by the Finnish Tax Administration and Customs, taxes remain unpaid in around 98% of alcohol distance sales orders to Finland, and the state loses an estimated 285 million euros each year in alcohol and beverage packaging tax revenue.

The Committee proposes introducing an obligation for distance sellers to notify the authorities, a mandatory tax identifier, and an obligation for transport companies to hand over alcoholic beverages to the recipient only if the shipment carries an identifier proving that the seller has paid the required taxes. The same rules must apply to all operators, regardless of whether alcohol is sold from Finland or from abroad.

Bypassing the EU is problematic

Following the Committee’s amendments, the bill should now be notified to the EU before it is brought before Parliament’s plenary session. Notification would clarify the earlier EU law dispute that has overshadowed the entire legislative process. The Government’s original proposal was notified to the Commission on 24 June 2025, and the Commission issued comments on the proposal in autumn 2025. Since the proposal has since been substantially amended, EHYT considers that the changes must be notified again.

Bypassing notification is problematic in two ways. First, the purpose of the EU notification procedure is to ensure that comments from Member States and the Commission have a real impact on the final form of the law. This requires notification to take place at a stage when the comments can still be taken into account. Second, a proposal whose procedure does not meet the requirements of EU law should not be brought before Parliament for plenary consideration. Members of Parliament must be able to trust that the proposals they are asked to consider are procedurally sound.

Failure to comply with the notification obligation also has concrete legal consequences. According to the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a national court may not apply a technical regulation that has not been notified. The provision could therefore become effectively unenforceable, even if it had been formally adopted, creating significant legal uncertainty.

The amendments must be notified before the plenary session

EHYT considers that the amendments must be notified to the Commission before the proposal is brought before Parliament’s plenary session. The Finnish authorities are responsible for notification, and Parliament’s task is to ensure that the proposal is not brought to the plenary session before the procedure meets the requirements of EU law. In its letter to the Commission, EHYT asked the Commission to draw the attention of the Finnish authorities to the notification obligation and to state whether the Committee’s amendments require a new notification.