The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech competition authority, known as UOHS) has intensified its enforcement posture in recent periods. Investigations into cartel conduct, abuse of market dominance, and non-compliant merger notification have multiplied. For international companies with Czech operations, the risk of significant penalties – and reputational damage – is now sharply elevated.
Czech competition law, grounded in the country's competition legislation and aligned with EU competition rules, prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of market dominance, and transactions that alter market structure without prior merger notification to UOHS. Penalties for infringement can reach up to ten percent of a company's net annual turnover. Companies with revenues above statutory thresholds must file for clearance before completing transactions that meet merger notification criteria.
This alert explains who is affected, what the current enforcement priorities are, and what steps international businesses operating in the Czech Republic should take immediately.
What has changed: enforcement priorities and penalty trends
UOHS has signalled a clear shift in enforcement emphasis. The authority is now dedicating substantial resources to three areas: cartel detection across distribution networks, scrutiny of market dominance in digital and retail sectors, and stricter review of merger notification filings.
On the cartel front, investigators have targeted price-fixing and market-sharing arrangements among suppliers and distributors. Dawn raids – unannounced inspections at company premises – have increased. Companies that fail to produce requested documents promptly face obstruction findings on top of underlying infringement penalties.
In market dominance cases, UOHS has focused on exclusivity arrangements and below-cost pricing that foreclose competitors. A finding of abuse does not require proof of intent. It is sufficient that the conduct has an anti-competitive effect in the relevant market.
Merger notification obligations have also attracted more scrutiny. The thresholds under Czech competition legislation trigger a mandatory pre-closing filing when aggregate Czech revenues of the parties exceed the statutory levels. Completing a notifiable transaction without prior clearance – known as gun-jumping – exposes both parties to separate fines, independent of any substantive competition concern.
Penalties have risen. UOHS has applied fines at the upper range of its statutory powers in recent decisions. The leniency programme, which allows cartel participants to reduce or eliminate fines by disclosing infringements, remains available – but only to the first qualifying applicant. A delay of even a few days can cost a company the benefit of full immunity.
For a detailed picture of ongoing competition law obligations in Czech Republic, including merger control procedures and dominance assessments, see our dedicated service page.
Who is affected and compliance deadlines
The enforcement shift affects a broad range of businesses. The following categories face the highest immediate risk:
- Multinational groups with Czech subsidiaries or distribution agreements
- Companies in retail, construction, logistics, and digital services – sectors under active UOHS review
- Parties to transactions that meet or approach Czech merger notification thresholds
- Companies that rely on exclusivity, most-favoured-nation clauses, or resale price maintenance in their Czech contracts
- Participants in industry associations where pricing or capacity data is exchanged
There is no single compliance deadline arising from a legislative amendment. The risk is ongoing and event-triggered. A transaction closing without notification, a contract renewal containing anti-competitive clauses, or a trade association meeting where commercially sensitive data is shared – each of these can trigger an investigation at any point.
Companies currently under UOHS investigation face shorter practical deadlines. Responses to information requests must be submitted within the timeframe specified in the authority's letter. Missing that window is treated as non-cooperation, which aggravates the penalty calculation. Internal reviews of potentially affected conduct should therefore begin without delay.
International companies that have recently acquired Czech businesses or entered distribution arrangements should treat the period immediately following closing as the highest-risk window. UOHS has shown a willingness to investigate historic conduct discovered during merger review procedures.
For related considerations in shareholder and corporate disputes that may arise from regulatory action, the firm's guidance on corporate disputes in Czech Republic provides a useful parallel perspective.
To discuss whether your Czech operations require an immediate compliance review, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Immediate action items for international companies
Given the enforcement environment described above, international companies should take the following steps now.
First, audit existing agreements. Review all distribution, supply, and agency contracts involving Czech counterparties. Identify any resale price maintenance clauses, territorial restrictions, or exchange of competitively sensitive information. Remove or amend clauses that do not satisfy the conditions for exemption under Czech and EU competition legislation.
Second, verify merger notification status. If your group has completed or is planning an acquisition, joint venture, or structural change in the Czech market, confirm whether the statutory thresholds are met. Gun-jumping fines are assessed separately from any substantive finding and can be substantial.
Third, review leniency programme eligibility. If your company is aware of cartel conduct – even historic conduct – assess whether a leniency application to UOHS is warranted. The programme offers meaningful penalty reductions. However, timing is critical. The benefit diminishes with each passing day if a competitor or UOHS itself is already investigating the same conduct.
Fourth, train staff on dawn raid protocols. Employees who interact with UOHS inspectors must know their rights and obligations. Cooperation is required, but legal privilege protects certain communications with external counsel. Designate a single internal contact to manage any inspection and ensure legal counsel is notified immediately.
Fifth, document compliance efforts. UOHS treats documented compliance programmes as a mitigating factor in penalty calculations. A written competition policy, regular staff training records, and a clear escalation procedure for concerns all demonstrate good faith. This can make a material difference to the final penalty figure.
Companies that identify potential exposure through these steps should seek specialist advice promptly. For parallel enforcement patterns across other European markets, see our alert on competition enforcement trends in Portugal.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our competition law practice supports international companies facing cartel investigations, market dominance scrutiny, and merger notification requirements in the Czech Republic and across Europe. Engaging a lawyer in Czech Republic with cross-border experience is especially important when UOHS enforcement intersects with EU-level proceedings before the European Commission. As a law firm in Czech Republic matters with dual civil law and common law expertise, we help clients assess exposure, structure leniency applications, and respond to authority investigations with a coordinated strategy. Our attorneys have advised on competition matters across both EU and non-EU markets, drawing on a network of local counsel in Central and Eastern Europe. To discuss how current Czech enforcement trends affect your business, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.