Who was sanctioned, and for what?

The Oberlandesgericht (OLG, Higher Regional Court) Linz added a forfeiture of 375,000 EUR to the conviction of a limited company under the Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz (VbVG, Austrian Corporate Criminal Liability Act) for intentionally handling and moving waste in a way that endangered the environment; the suspended corporate fine of 30 daily rates of 500 EUR (15,000 EUR) imposed by the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Salzburg remained in place. From May 2021 to May 2024 and again from May 2025 to February 2026, contrary to the AWG 2002 (Waste Management Act) and partly to an official decision, the company had excavated soil, construction waste, asphalt and concrete rubble accepted for payment and deposited on a plot; removal costs were put at around 3.24 million EUR. Only the forfeiture of EUR 375,000 is recorded as the amount; the corporate fine of EUR 15,000 was conditionally suspended.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Linz (Berufung gegen Urteil des Landesgerichts Salzburg vom 06.03.2026)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances

Legal basis

§ 181b Abs. 1 und 2 StGB; §§ 3, 4 Abs. 1 und 3, § 6 Abs. 1, § 14 Abs. 1 VbVG; § 20 Abs. 3 StGB; AWG 2002

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

No previous convictions of the company; rather low environmental risk. Further circumstances taken into account by the court concern a natural person and are not reported here.

Liability of senior managers

Under the VbVG, the company's liability is linked to the conduct of its managing director.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Killer GmbH & Co KG and Killer GmbH allegedly 278,000 EUR for taking part in the nationwide waste management cartel from July 2002 to March 2021, mainly in Lower and Upper Austria and occasionally in Tyrol. The participants fixed prices, shared territories and customers and exchanged competitively sensitive information, including in tenders for waste collection. The fine was reduced because of leniency status and the consensual termination of the proceedings.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction for cooperation under the leniency programme and the consensual termination of the proceedings.

Published

15 Sep 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

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

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Pfanner Schutzbekleidung GmbH, Protos GmbH and their holding company (now Pronocer Holding GmbH) 400,000 EUR because, from 9 March 2016 to 25 November 2021, they fixed their dealers' resale prices for work and protective clothing in Austria. Compliance was monitored systematically, dealers who deviated were contacted, and in 2019 a circular reminded all dealers of the prices. Reductions were granted for the settlement, cooperation and a newly introduced compliance system.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 und 4 KartG und Art. 101 AEUV; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Consensual termination of the proceedings, cooperation with the BWB (Federal Competition Authority), introduction of a compliance system.

Published

18 Sep 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbH, a subsidiary of Steiner Baugesellschaft m.b.H., allegedly 130,000 EUR for taking part in the construction cartel in Lower Austria from July 2002 to August 2016 (price fixing, market sharing and information exchange in civil engineering tenders). The BWB (Federal Competition Authority) set the fine lower because of the company's limited financial capacity, as it reported annual losses in 2023 and 2024; the company gave a full acknowledgement.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Limited financial capacity (losses in 2023 and 2024); full acknowledgement.

Published

4 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

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

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined MAGEBA Gesellschaft m.b.H. 400,000 EUR because, from November 2017 to December 2018, it shared customers for road expansion joints and bridge bearings in Austria with a competitor and exchanged information on pricing behaviour. Against Maurer SE and Maurer Söhne Ges. mbH the court merely declared the infringement because of their leniency status. A compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation was taken into account in mitigation, and intent in a hardcore restriction as an aggravating factor.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a KartG; § 28 Abs. 1 und 1a Z 1 KartG (Feststellung gegenüber Kronzeugin)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Only five projects over about 13 months, no enrichment established, low-level information exchange, the group's economic difficulties, compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation.

Published

18 Nov 2025

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed a fine of 540,000 EUR, jointly and severally, on Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH and Securitas AB. From August 2019 to December 2022, an employee coordinated prices and strategic information with a competitor in three private tenders for manned security services. The Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB, Federal Competition Authority) granted a reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Z 1 lit. a KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Defence and security

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.

Published

12 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed fines totalling 634,000 EUR for vertical resale price maintenance on Sennheiser-brand consumer electronics audio products (headphones): 534,000 EUR on Sennheiser electronic SE & Co KG for May 2015 to February 2022 and 100,000 EUR on Sonova AG for March to September 2022. Retailers were given end-customer prices whose observance was monitored; both companies cooperated and did not contest the facts.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV und § 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Full cooperation in clarifying the facts; all essential facts left undisputed (acknowledgement).

Published

16 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Saubermacher Dienstleistungs-Aktiengesellschaft, Trüger Recycling- und Transport-GesmbH and pink robin gmbh 7.085 million EUR for taking part in a nationwide cartel in waste collection (July 2002 to March 2021). The participants fixed prices, shared markets and exchanged information on public and private tenders; the three companies' periods of involvement differed in length. Starting from 15.58 million EUR, the Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB, Federal Competition Authority) granted a reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings (starting amount 15.58 million EUR).

Published

8 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

A textile company started operations with a joint venture (H* GmbH) for the production of protective masks on 24 April 2020, before the notifiable concentration had been cleared; the infringement lasted until 25 May 2020. The Cartel Court imposed a fine of 5,000 EUR; the OGH increased the fine to 100,000 EUR.

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

Other

Culpability

intentional

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

From February 2011 to October 2016, a construction and furniture joinery anonymised in the decision (together with its general partner GmbH) participated in agreements on successful bidders, cover bids, market sharing and information exchange in tenders in Lower Austria and Vienna. The Cartel Court imposed a fine of 55,000 EUR only for 26 infringements up to June 2016; the OGH upheld the appeals of the BWB and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor and set a fine of 65,000 EUR on a joint and several basis for the entire period.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs 1 KartG 2005, §§ 28, 29 KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link