Who was sanctioned, and for what?

From December 2022, an auditor and tax adviser processed payments of another limited company totalling around 1.26 million EUR through the bank account of his tax advisory company, which was held as an own account, without disclosing this to the bank – according to the court, deliberately in order to avoid a compliance review. The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) upheld the fine of 30,000 EUR imposed on him by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 27 November 2025, in his capacity as managing director of the account-holding company, which is liable for the penalty; an ordinary appeal on points of law is not admissible.

Authority / court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 27.11.2025

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

§ 6 Abs. 3 FM-GwG (Offenlegung des Handelns auf fremde Rechnung) i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 5 FM-GwG; § 9 Abs. 1 und 7 VStG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Fine imposed on the managing director personally; liability of the company under Section 9(7) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act)

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

On 29 May 2024, the Vienna broadcaster W24 aired advertising in split screen within the programme ‘24 Stunden Wien’, did not adequately separate advertising from programming and, at around 50 minutes, significantly exceeded the permitted 12 minutes of advertising per hour. The Austrian Communications Authority (Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, KommAustria) imposed fines totalling 500 EUR (plus 50 EUR in costs) on the body authorised to represent the company externally; the GmbH is jointly and severally liable under § 9 (7) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act).

Authority / court

Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

§ 64 Abs. 2 Z 9 i. V. m. §§ 43 Abs. 2, 44 Abs. 1, 45 Abs. 1 AMD-G; § 9 VStG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

No previous record, duration of proceedings, remorseful confession and remedial measures initiated.

Liability of senior managers

Fine imposed on the body responsible externally (§ 9 (1) VStG); the company is jointly and severally liable.

Published

19 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In the programme ‘Sport aktuell’ on ORF 1 on 29 July 2025, a logo wall was visible as product placement without being labelled. The Austrian Communications Authority (Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, KommAustria) found, with final effect, a violation of the ORF Act (ORF-Gesetz).

Authority / court

Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

§ 16 Abs. 5 Z 4 ORF-G

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

29 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The managing director under commercial law of a GmbH (anonymised in the decision as ‘L GmbH’, insolvent in 2025) had underpaid twelve employees by considerable amounts, partly in 2023 and predominantly in 2024. The Vienna municipal authority (Magistrat der Stadt Wien) imposed 38,000 EUR, and the Vienna Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht Wien) reduced this to 15,000 EUR; Austria's Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) rejected the appeal on points of law (Ra 2026/11/0064).

Authority / court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vorinstanzen: Magistrat der Stadt Wien, Verwaltungsgericht Wien)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Legal basis

§ 29 Abs. 1 Lohn- und Sozialdumping-Bekämpfungsgesetz (LSD-BG)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of the fine by the Vienna Administrative Court.

Liability of senior managers

The fine is directed against the managing director under commercial law.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The company had stored statistically calculated ‘party affinities’ for around 2.2 million people and in some cases sold them to advertising clients – special categories of personal data without consent; in addition, parcel frequency data was further processed for incompatible purposes. The Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) had imposed 18 million EUR in 2019 and the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) 16 million EUR in 2024; Austria's Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) has now set the fine with final effect at 13 million EUR (plus 100,000 EUR in procedural costs).

Authority / court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Ausgangsbescheid: Datenschutzbehörde)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und b, Art. 6 Abs. 4, Art. 9 Abs. 1 (VwGH Ro 2025/04/0007)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Other

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Comprehensive cooperation, deletion of the party affinities, settlements with data subjects, long duration of proceedings (5 years, 10 months).

Published

16 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From 2017 to 2020, an Austrian bank specialising in private and investment banking had not adequately examined the ownership and control structure of an offshore holding client despite the lack of evidence on shareholders, trust arrangements and beneficial owners. The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) confirmed the infringement but reduced the additional penalty imposed by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 17 December 2024 from 476,000 to 356,000 EUR (total penalty 436,000 EUR less FMA penalties already paid), because the FMA had taken the seriousness of the offence into account twice and the bank had cooperated, admitted its errors and terminated the client relationship; an appeal on points of law has been permitted.

Authority / court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 17.12.2024

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

§ 9 Abs. 1 erster Satz i. V. m. § 6 Abs. 1 Z 2 FM-GwG; § 35 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 1 Z 2 und Abs. 2 FM-GwG; § 22 Abs. 9 FMABG (Zusatzstrafe)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction by the court because the wrongfulness of the offence had been counted twice, cooperation, admission of the facts and of guilt, and termination of the client relationship

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) dismissed the appeal of a listed major Austrian bank and upheld the fine of 588,000 EUR (plus 58,800 EUR in procedural costs) imposed by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 19 November 2024. From 2017 to 2020, the bank had not adequately risk-classified three business relationships and had disregarded sector risks such as gambling and precious metals trading as well as cash intensity; an appeal on points of law has been permitted.

Authority / court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 19.11.2024

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

§ 6 Abs. 5 i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 1 Z 2 und § 35 Abs. 1–3 FM-GwG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A treatment facility for non-hazardous waste was permitted for a maximum of 150,000 t of annual deliveries and 60,000 t of storage, but accepted around 188,000 t and 224,000 t in 2021 and 2022 respectively and at times stored 173,000 t. The Lower Austria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, LVwG) upheld the penalty imposed on the responsible officer for modifying the facility without a permit but reduced the fine from 8,400 to 6,000 EUR (LVwG-S-1039/004-2024).

Authority / court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Straferkenntnis der Bezirkshauptmannschaft Baden)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances

Legal basis

§ 79 Abs. 1 Z 9 i. V. m. § 37 Abs. 3 Z 5 AWG 2002; § 9 Abs. 2 VStG i. V. m. § 26 Abs. 6 AWG 2002

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Other

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Disproportionately long proceedings (§ 34 (2) StGB, Austrian Criminal Code) as the only mitigating factor; the officer's relevant previous convictions were an aggravating factor.

Liability of senior managers

The penalty was imposed on the company's responsible officer appointed under § 9 (2) VStG.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The managing director of a Polish construction company with twelve employees (anonymised in the decision as ‘P Sp. z o.o.’), which was working as a subcontractor on a motorway bridge construction site in Upper Austria, had paid five rebar benders below the collectively agreed wage in March 2023. The Gmunden district authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmunden) imposed 12,500 EUR, and the Upper Austria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich) reduced this to 11,000 EUR; Austria's Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) rejected the appeal on points of law (Ra 2025/11/0196).

Authority / court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vorinstanzen: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmunden, Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Legal basis

§ 29 Abs. 1 Lohn- und Sozialdumping-Bekämpfungsgesetz (LSD-BG)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

Under 50

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of the fine by the Regional Administrative Court.

Liability of senior managers

The fine is directed against the managing director as the person responsible under administrative criminal law.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Bezirkshauptmannschaft (district administrative authority) penalised the managing director of a Tyrolean hospital operator because in September 2022 physicians had not been granted sufficient rest periods after extended shifts and maximum duty hours had been exceeded; the Regional Administrative Court set aside several counts because the time clock data were said to have been incorrect. On an official appeal on points of law (Amtsrevision) by the Minister of Labour, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Administrative Court, VwGH) partly set aside that ruling: witness statements alone are not sufficient to rebut time clock records.

Authority / court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (VwGH); Strafbehörde: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Working time

Legal basis

§§ 4 Abs. 4 Z 1, 7 Abs. 3, 11 Abs. 1, 12 Abs. 1 Krankenanstalten-Arbeitszeitgesetz (KA-AZG); § 9 VStG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Liability of senior managers

Fines imposed on the managing director under commercial law; liability of the company under § 9(7) VStG.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The agency conducted telephone pre-screening interviews with applicants on behalf of client companies, recorded them without valid consent, stored them indefinitely and presented itself as the client company in doing so. The Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 25,500 EUR (plus 2,550 EUR in costs) for lack of a legal basis and transparency; the company has lodged an appeal against the amount of the fine with the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht).

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, c und e, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 12, 13

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Other

Employees

Under 50

Mitigating circumstances

No relevant previous violations, cooperation in the proceedings; adjustment of the starting amount to the company's small size.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Customer data (including names, e-mail addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers) could be retrieved via an unprotected development server of the advertising agency. An employee took the first alert from an external party in January 2025 to be spam; only a second alert in February reached management, which closed the gap but only notified the incident on 2 May 2025 after being requested to do so by the Datenschutzbehörde (Austrian Data Protection Authority, DSB). The authority attributed the employee’s conduct to the company.

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 33 Abs. 1 iVm Art. 83 Abs. 4 lit. a DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

No previous infringements and cooperation in the proceedings; gap closed immediately after the second alert, employees trained subsequently.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

On 1 August 2024, a doctor accessed e-prescriptions and medication data of a former employee twelve times in the ELGA electronic health record without any treatment relationship. The Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 1,000 EUR (plus 100 EUR in costs); confession and a clean record were mitigating factors.

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde

Area of law

Data protection · Employee data

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und b, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 1 und 2

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

No previous record, negligence, full cooperation and confession.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In the CASAG set of proceedings, the businessman was charged with having granted a head of cabinet and later secretary general at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) benefits worth around 17,000 EUR (use of luxury cars, tailor-made suits) in order to obtain goodwill in official business. After he accepted responsibility, the proceedings were concluded with final effect by way of diversion (discontinuation without a conviction) against payment of around 60,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Wirtschafts- und Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft (WKStA); Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Gifts, hospitality and benefits

Legal basis

§ 307a StGB (Vorteilszuwendung); Diversion nach StPO

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Personal responsibility of the businessman Ronny Pecik (diversion without a finding of guilt).

Published

8 Aug 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In 2023, the Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) had ordered a local news portal (a media GmbH & Co KG, name pseudonymised) by decision to offer, on the first layer of the cookie banner, an equivalent option to close it without consent. Because the company did not implement this from October 2024 until at least March 2025, the DSB imposed 6,200 EUR for failure to comply with an instruction; the penalty decision is final.

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. d i. V. m. Art. 83 Abs. 6 DSGVO; Art. 7 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In September 2022, the KG (limited partnership) accepted 257.78 tonnes of wastewater from the glycerine treatment of a Hungarian biodiesel plant which, because of its methanol content (2.2 %), was subject to notification as hazardous waste but was shipped to Austria without notification and consent. The Lower Austria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, LVwG) upheld the fine of 850 EUR against the partner authorised to represent the company, set aside the second count (collection without a permit) and discontinued the proceedings in that respect (LVwG-S-512/001-2025).

Authority / court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Straferkenntnis der Bezirkshauptmannschaft Wiener Neustadt)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances

Legal basis

§ 79 Abs. 1 Z 15b i. V. m. § 69 AWG 2002; Art. 2 Nr. 35 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1013/2006 (Abfallverbringung); § 9 Abs. 1 VStG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Other

Liability of senior managers

The penalty was imposed on the partner with unlimited liability as the person appointed to represent the company externally under § 9 (1) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act).

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A Hungarian lorry driver of a freight transport company based in Hungary (not named in the decision) received only 137.94 EUR instead of the 319.55 EUR required under the collective agreement for a posting to Austria in March 2020. The Weiz district authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft Weiz) imposed 500 EUR on the managing director, and the Styria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark) upheld this; Austria's Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) rejected the appeal on points of law (Ra 2025/11/0049).

Authority / court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vorinstanzen: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Weiz, Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Legal basis

§ 29 Abs. 1 Lohn- und Sozialdumping-Bekämpfungsgesetz (LSD-BG)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Liability of senior managers

The fine is directed against the managing director under commercial law.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

On Saturday, 17 December 2022, the management board of a listed real estate company (anonymised in the judgment) approved by email a new share buyback programme including its volume, period and price, but only published it after a formal resolution on Monday, 19 December 2022. Austria's Financial Market Authority (FMA) imposed a penalty of 375,000 EUR; the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) upheld the breach of the ad hoc disclosure obligation but reduced the penalty to 300,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Beschwerde gegen Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht FMA)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 17 Abs. 1 MAR i. V. m. § 156 Abs. 3 Z 2, Abs. 4 BörseG 2018

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

negligent

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Two gym operators announced a fee increase of 6 EUR a month and treated silence or the failure to exercise a special right of termination as consent. In an action brought by the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (Bundesarbeitskammer), the OGH upheld the prohibition of such increases without express agreement and the publication of the judgment; it dismissed claims for repayment and information.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), GZ 4 Ob 51/25s

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

§ 6 Abs. 1 Z 2, § 28a KSchG; §§ 1a, 14 UWG

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A food retail group anonymised in the decision (R*) had, through its subsidiary, implemented a notifiable concentration without merger control clearance by means of a long-term lease of store space in a shopping centre (1 July 2018 to 20 September 2022). The Cartel Court (Kartellgericht) imposed a fine of 1.5 million EUR; Austria's Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) upheld the appeals of the Federal Competition Authority (Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, BWB) and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor (Bundeskartellanwalt) and set the fine at 70 million EUR, taking into account the group turnover of 92.3 billion EUR and an earlier fine for prohibited implementation.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

§ 29 Z 1 lit a iVm § 17 Abs 1 KartG 2005

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report