to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 4/2026

(i) On substantial aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 18 March 2026, 13Os143/25s (aggravated fraud – commercial intent; damage assessment)

The case concerns convictions for, among other things, aggravated fraud under Sections 146, 147 and 148 of the Austrian Criminal Code (StGB), in particular the requirements for commercial intent and the determination of damage. The nullity complaint argued that the findings were insufficient with regard to the calculation of damage exceeding EUR 400,000 and the existence of commercial intent, alleging a As regards commercial intent, the Supreme Court clarified that qualification under Section 148 StGB requires the intention to obtain a continuous, not merely minor income through repeated offences and, in the case of the second variant, through the repeated commission of aggravated fraud. It found that the general findings that the defendant intended to generate income over a prolonged period were insufficient to support qualification under Section 148, second case, StGB.

(i) On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 25 March 2026, 15Os22/26p (seizure of data and data carriers – temporal scope of data evaluation)

The Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 2024 (StPRÄG 2024) introduced new provisions governing the seizure of data storage media and data; since 1 January 2025, this measure has required a court-approved order from the public prosecutor's office. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled thereon, addressing Section 115f(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), according to which the order must, in particular, specify the categories of data and data content to be seized, as well as the period to which the measure relates.

The Vienna Higher Regional Court argued that attributing data to be analysed to a specific period is, in principle, only permissible on the basis of the "timestamp". However, the Supreme Court found that this legal view violates Section 115f(3) StPO. It argued that, if followed, this interpretation would make access to child abuse material by criminal prosecution authorities considerably more difficult or even prevent such access altogether – a consequence contrary to the legislature's intention, particularly since the timestamp does not serve as an absolute exclusion criterion. Rather, limiting the measure to the data "present on the data carrier at the time of seizure" itself constitutes a "period" that satisfies the legal requirements of Section 115f(3) StPO and is therefore permissible.

Austrian Supreme Court, 24 March 2026, 12Ns15/26s (jurisdiction – joinder of proceedings; diversion and competence conflict)

The decision concerns the determination of jurisdiction in the context of a competence conflict between courts pursuant to Sections 37 and 38 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), in particular the requirements for the joinder of proceedings where related cases are pending against the same defendant. It arises from parallel proceedings before the Regional Court Feldkirch and the Regional Court for Criminal Matters Graz, including a case in which diversion had been offered but no continuation order had been issued after non-compliance with the conditions. A key issue was whether the pending diversion precluded the joinder of proceedings and affected jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that, in cases of subjective connection, proceedings must in principle be joined in accordance with Section 37 StPO, with jurisdiction determined by the hierarchy set out in that provision. It found, however, that where diversion has been offered pursuant to Section 200(4) in conjunction with Section 199 StPO, jurisdiction for joinder is excluded until the proceedings are formally continued. As no continuation order had been issued, the Court concluded that the diversion remained pending and precluded joinder. It therefore held that the Regional Court for Criminal Matters Graz remained competent to conduct the proceedings.

(i) On substantial aspects

Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 6 As 53/2025-28 (Liability for an Administrative Offence of legal entities; Release from liability pursuant to Section 21 of the Liability for Administrative Offences Act; Backwards release)

The complainant ­– a legal entity – sought the annulment of a decision ordering it to pay a fine for an administrative offence. The offence consisted of an error in the procedure for registering the owner in the vehicle registry. The complainant did not deny that it had committed the act in question. However, it argued that the grounds for its exoneration from liability had been met.

The law allows for the extinction of liability through the use of a special proposal submitted to the authority. The complainant made use of this mechanism, but only after the deadline for doing so had expired. It nevertheless argued that its liability had ceased because it had voluntarily corrected the entry in the vehicle registry itself. By doing so, it had alerted the authorities to its offence. Holding it liable, the complainant claimed, would amount to compelled self-incrimination.

The Supreme Administrative Court, however, clearly stated that exemption from liability cannot be applied retroactively if the statutory deadline is not met. Furthermore, it did not consider it relevant that the complainant had independently decided to draw attention to the existence of the unlawful situation.

Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 4 As 242/2024-65 (Liability for an Administrative Offence of legal entities; Release from liability pursuant to Section 21 of the Liability for Administrative Offences Act; Energy crisis as force majeure)

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that force majeure in the form of an energy crisis does not constitute grounds for exempting a company from liability for unfair commercial practices.

The energy company, bound by fixed-term contracts with its end customers, began unilaterally altering and disregarding those contracts. It did so to recoup losses incurred due to a sharp increase in energy prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In court, it argued that such a force majeure event does not form part of ordinary business risk and should therefore be considered a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

The Supreme Administrative Court, however, took a different view. In its opinion, the complainant failed to demonstrate that it had in any way taken into account the interests of the affected consumers; thus, there was nothing that would mitigate the social harmfulness of its conduct. The Court therefore refused to overturn or otherwise reduce the penalty imposed on the company by the regulatory authority.

It also did not take into account the objection that a fine of that magnitude would be ruinous for the company, as this had not been proven. The complainant was unable to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims regarding alleged unfair commercial practices and resulting consumer harm. The cited force majeure argument, referencing the 2021 energy market crisis triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, was not adequately substantiated. The complainant raised prices for consumers with a fixed rate agreement, thereby committing an offence under Section 24(1)(a) of Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection. The Supreme Administrative Court emphasised the gravity of the complainant's actions, noting that the crisis did not mitigate the significant social harm caused by the conduct.

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 11 Tdo 172/2025 (criminal liability of legal entities; unauthorised handling of waste; intentional general endangerment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Supreme Public Prosecutor and upheld the conviction of natural persons and two legal entities for unauthorised handling of waste under Section 298(2) and (4) of the Criminal Code and for intentional general endangerment under Section 272(1) of the Criminal Code. The case involved the takeover and improper storage of 210 barrels containing approximately 19 tonnes of hazardous waste with 67 % white phosphorus content in an unapproved and unsecured facility located in a residential area, in the immediate vicinity of a bus and railway station.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the accused acted with the intent to handle the substance as waste (rather than to use it as a poison), and therefore the elements of so-called drug-related offences were not established. The accused had falsely re-classified the hazardous waste as "technical phosphorus" and removed it from the waste records in order to trade it outside the waste management regime.

ECJ, 19 March 2026, C-371/24 (biometric data – collection in criminal proceedings; requirement of strict necessity)

The judgment concerns Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of personal data in criminal matters and the conditions under which biometric data may be collected in criminal investigations. It arises from proceed-ngs in which an individual refused to undergo identification measures, including the taking of fingerprints and photographs, and was convicted for that refusal despite being acquitted of the underlying offence. The referring court asked whether EU law allows the systematic collection of such data from any suspect without individual justification and whether a refusal may be sanctioned.

The ECJ held that biometric data may be processed only where strictly necessary and subject to appropriate safeguards. It found that mere suspicion of a criminal offence is insufficient and that each measure must be supported by a clear statement of reasons enabling the person concerned to understand and challenge it. It further held that rules providing for systematic collection without individual assessment are incompatible with EU law. As regards sanctions, their lawfulness depends on whether the collection satisfies the requirement of strict necessity and complies with the principle of proportionality.

ECJ, 12 March 2026, C-84/24 (EU sanctions – asset freeze of non-listed companies under control of listed persons)

The case concerns the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in particular the scope of asset-freezing measures in relation to legal persons not included on the sanctions list. It arises from the freezing of the assets of a Lithuanian company on the ground that a listed natural person held a 50 % shareholding in that company. The referring court asked whether the funds and economic resources of a non-listed company may be frozen where they are owned, held or controlled by a listed person.

The ECJ held that the freezing of funds under Regulation No 765/2006 al-so covers the funds and economic resources of a company not included on the list, provided that those resources are owned, held or controlled by a listed person. It found that the concepts of "held" and "controlled" must be interpreted broadly, including both direct and indirect influence, and that a 50 % shareholding gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of control over the company and its funds. The Court further held that such a presumption must be capable of being challenged, requiring Member States to provide procedures enabling both the non-listed entity and the listed person to contest the freezing measure and, where appropriate, obtain the unfreezing of the assets.

Austria

On 23 March 2026, the Austrian Supreme Court issued a press release on the planned reform to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, expressing significant concerns. Recent media reports indicate that an agreement within the governing coalition is imminent. However, the Court warned against the politically self-imposed time pressure surrounding this "reform of the century".

According to current plans, the top level of prosecutorial authority is to consist of a three-member body elected by Parliament and, under some proposals, possibly also subject to removal. The Court raised serious concerns, noting that judges in Austria are not elected by Parliament but selected through established judicial procedures. It referred to the existing system of judicial appointments and questioned why a comparable model, which also ensures indirect democratic legitimacy, should not apply to the prosecution service.

The Court further noted that the reform, intended to address concerns regarding appearances of political influence, could in fact intensify such concerns. A leadership composed of politically appointed members may facilitate political bargaining and create the impression of party-political alignment. Additional concerns relate to reported plans to lower qualification requirements and to open these positions to individuals without prior experience as judges or prosecutors.

The Court also questioned the necessity of the reform, pointing out that existing structural deficiencies in staffing and resources remain unaddressed. The proposed three-member structure is almost unique in international comparison and may raise efficiency concerns, while key practical issues, such as the duration of criminal investigations, are not addressed.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has published its Annual Report 2025, providing a comprehensive overview of the past judicial year. The report looks back at key judgments and major developments in EU case law, while also offering insight into the work of both the Court of Justice and the General Court. In addition, it highlights how the institution operates in practice, including its internal services, communication activities and cooperation with national courts, supported by key figures illustrating the year in review.