to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 7/2026

(i) On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 21 April 2026, 10 Ob 18/26h (client-attorney privilege; litigation PR)

The case arose from civil proceedings before the Liechtenstein Princely Court of Justice (Fürstliches Landgericht) concerning alleged defamatory statements. Two employees of a Vienna-based communications agency were called as witnesses. The agency had been engaged by a law firm to provide strategic public relations services ("litigation PR"). Both witnesses refused to testify, arguing that their work for the agency made them assistants to the solicitor and thus subject to the solicitor's duty of confidentiality.The central provision was Section 9 (2) of the Austrian Lawyers' Act (Rechtsanwaltsordnung, RAO), which obliges solicitors to maintain confidentiality regarding everything entrusted to them in the course of a mandate. This duty expressly extends to "auxiliary staff" (Hilfskräfte).The question was whether it also encompasses employees of an external company engaged by the law firm for public relations activities.

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) upheld the refusal to testify, holding that the concept of auxiliary staff is to be interpreted broadly. The decisive factor is whether the person or firm engaged is in a contractual relationship with the law firm, thereby gains access to confidential client information, and has been duly bound to confidentiality by the solicitor. The Court further noted that the law expressly guards against circumvention of the duty of confidentiality (Section 9 (3) RAO).

Although the decision stems from civil proceedings in Liechtenstein, the right to refuse testimony is expected to apply equally in criminal proceedings, as Section 9 (2) of the Austrian Lawyers' Act is identical under Austrian law.

(i) On substantial matters

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 7 Tdo 395/2026 (environmental damage; criminal liability of a legal entity)

The matter concerned appeals by a corporation and its executive against allegations that they had caused severe damage to a forest through the illegal construction of a road. The defendants raised two principal arguments: first, that the road was necessary and that their only wrongdoing consisted in failing to obtain the required permits in time; second, that the corporation could not be held criminally liable because the decision to proceed with construction without the proper authorisation was made against the interests of the corporation as a whole – one of the statutory conditions for attributing criminal liability to a legal entity.

The Court dismissed both arguments. First, it held that the alleged usefulness of the road in no way diminished the defendants' disregard for lawful procedure, particularly in light of the severity of the environmental harm caused. As to the second argument, the Court found it untenable on the basis of the defendants' own prior statements – namely that the construction works were beneficial to the forest and the surrounding area – from which it necessarily followed that the construction must also have been in the interests of the corporation.

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 5 Tdo 254/2025 (public procurement fraud; criminal liability of a legal entity; preliminary market consultations)

An employee of a contracting authority, an employee of a bidding company, and the bidding company itself were prosecuted for manipulating the award of a public contract for the maintenance of strategic traffic detectors. The bidding company's employees drafted the entire tender documentation, which was subsequently presented by the contracting authority as its own. The contracting authority's employee received a tablet device as consideration for his cooperation. The lower courts acquitted all defendants, concluding that no criminal offence had been committed.

The Supreme Court overturned both decisions and remanded the case for retrial. The Court held that permitting a single bidder to draft the entire tender documentation without disclosing this fact to other potential bidders constituted a fundamental breach of the principles of transparency and equal treatment – sufficient in itself to establish criminal liability under Section 256 (1) of the Czech Criminal Code (Securing an unfair advantage for a supplier or participant in public tenders, contests, or auctions), irrespective of whether any individual tender requirement was discriminatory on its face. The Court further rejected the lower courts' characterisation of the arrangement as a lawful "preliminary market consultation", stressing that such consultations are designed to address specific technical or commercial questions, not to delegate the entire procurement process to a prospective bidder.

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 5 Tdo 72/2024 (public procurement fraud; bribery; EU funds; criminal liability of legal entities)

Several defendants, including two corporations, were convicted of rigging public procurement procedures relating to EU-funded renovation projects at the National Stud in Kladruby nad Labem. The scheme involved pre-arranged consortia of bidders offering bribes to competing suppliers to withdraw from tender procedures and influencing procurement documentation to ensure favourable outcomes. The damage was quantified as the full amount of the EU subsidy obtained.

The Supreme Court partially overturned the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing. In doing so, the Court endorsed the Grand Chamber's ruling (File No. 15 Tdo 1111/2024), which unified case law by confirming that the offence of securing an advantage in a public tender (Section 256 of the Czech Criminal Code) may be charged concurrently with bribery offences (Sections 331/332 of the Criminal Code), as each provision protects a different legal interest. The Court also clarified that the amount of damage in EU fraud cases generally corresponds to the full amount of the subsidy involved.

(i) On procedural aspects

 High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Panel for the Preliminary Rulings on Criminal Matters, Decision No. 74/2026 (mediation agreement as a ground for termination of criminal proceedings)

The Court upheld that mediation in criminal matters constitutes an autonomous legal institution, endowed with its own normative framework and operating independently from other causes for removing criminal liability, such as withdrawal of the prior complaint or reconciliation between parties. It emphasised that there was no genuine legal issue, since the applicable provisions are clear and coherent and unequivocally establish the sui generis nature of the mediation agreement, thereby excluding its assimilation by analogy with other procedural mechanisms governed by distinct legal regimes.

The Court clarified that the amendment introduced by Law No. 116/2025 to Article 158 (4) of the Romanian Criminal Code – requiring prosecutorial confirmation for the withdrawal of a prior complaint – has a strictly limited scope and does not apply to mediation agreements. It emphasised the principle of strict interpretation in criminal law, holding that additional conditions cannot be imposed by analogy in the absence of explicit legal provisions and that extending such a requirement to mediation would be inadmissible.

It further highlighted that mediation and reconciliation, although sharing certain similarities, are distinct legal institutions with different legal regimes, as confirmed by Constitutional Court Decision No. 204/2025. Mediation is thus a specialised, institutionalised procedure that cannot be reduced to a mere form of reconciliation.

Finally, the Court reaffirmed that Law No. 192/2006 constitutes the lex specialis governing mediation, including in criminal matters, and prevails over general provisions of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the legal effects of mediation agreements must be assessed exclusively within the framework of the Romanian Mediation Law, rather than by reference to rules applicable to withdrawal of the prior complaint or reconciliation.

(ii) On substantial aspects

Bacău Court of Appeal, Criminal Decision No. 426 of 3 June 2026 (exceeding the scope of the indictment when passing sentence on the offence of outrage)

By Criminal Decision No. 426 of 3 June 2026, the Bacău Court of Appeal examined a point of law concerning the determination of penalties for the offence of outrage (assault on or contempt of an official), with direct implications for proportionate punishment.

In the present case, the defendant was formally charged with two counts of outrage perpetrated against two police officers, each charge being linked in legal terms to the offences of assault and other acts of violence as well as to the offence of issuing threats. This notwithstanding, the court of first instance erroneously ordered the conviction of the defendant for four distinct counts of outrage, improperly disaggregating the threatening conduct and the acts of violence directed against each injured party into separate offences.

The acts of threatening and those of physical violence were committed in the same context and occurred in close succession. The Court held that the offence of making threats is naturally subsumed within the offence against bodily integrity or health.

Accordingly, the court of first instance was not entitled to convict the defendant for four separate offences, as such a determination exceeded the limits of the referral and infringed the principle that judicial proceedings must remain within the confines of the charging instrument.

ECJ, 4 June 2026, C-312/24, Darashev (GDPR; criminal suspicion data; personnel file; right to erasure)

The judgment concerns the storage, in a personnel file, of data relating to a police officer's status as a suspect in a criminal investigation. The case arose from proceedings in Bulgaria, where data collected by one directorate of a public authority in the course of a criminal investigation were subsequently stored by another directorate of the same authority in the officer's personnel file for employment-related purposes. The investigation was ultimately suspended, with the officer not having been formally accused of or charged with the offence and no disciplinary proceedings having been brought.

The Court held that such processing falls within the scope of the GDPR where data is stored for purposes relating to the management of the officer's career and the monitoring of compliance with professional duties. It further held that data concerning a person's status as a suspect in a criminal investigation constitute personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences within the meaning of Article 10 GDPR, irrespective of the fact that the commission of the offence was not established in the course of the investigation. The storage of such data may be justified where it is necessary to comply with a legal obligation based on national law, provided that the legal basis is clear, precise and foreseeable, pursues an objective of public interest, and is proportionate. If the processing is unlawful, the controller must erase the data without undue delay, unless an exception applies.

ECJ, 4 June 2026, Joined Cases C-722/23 and C-91/24, Rugu and Aucroix (European arrest warrant; detention conditions; enforcement of custodial sentences; impunity)

The judgment concerns the consequences of refusing to execute European arrest warrants on the ground that the persons being sought would risk being exposed to inhumane or degrading treatment because of detention conditions in the issuing Member States. The Belgian courts had refused to execute European arrest warrants issued by the Romanian and Greek authorities for the enforcement of custodial sentences. The Belgian Court of Cassation asked whether, in those circumstances, Belgium was required to enforce the custodial sentences on its own territory in order to prevent the convicted persons from remaining unpunished.

The Court held that, where an executing Member State refuses to execute a European arrest warrant on such grounds, it must take all possible steps to ensure that the custodial sentence is enforced in its own territory. To that end, the executing judicial authority must use the mechanism for the mutual recognition and enforcement of custodial sentences under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA and, on its own initiative, request the issuing Member State to forward the judgment imposing the sentence. The Court emphasised that the executing and issuing authorities must cooperate in good faith to avoid impunity. It further noted that, although enforcement in another Member State generally requires the consent of the person concerned, such consent is not always required, in particular where that person left the sentencing Member State in order to avoid enforcement of the sentence.

ECtHR, 19 May 2026, Minteh v. France (right to silence; privilege against self-incrimination; decryption obligation; mobile phone data)

The decision concerns the applicant's criminal conviction for refusing, while in police custody, to provide the decryption key for his mobile phones. The applicant had been arrested in connection with drug-trafficking offences. Several phones were seized, and he was informed that refusing to communicate the decryption key could constitute a separate criminal offence under Article 434-15-2 of the French Criminal Code. The applicant invoked his right to remain silent and refused to provide the codes. He was subsequently convicted of both the drug offences and the refusal to provide the decryption key.

The Court declared the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded as regards Article 6. It found no appearance of a violation of the right to silence, since the obligation was not aimed at obtaining a confession and did not entail any presumption of guilt but served to enable access to encrypted data. As regards the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court accepted that the applicant had been subject to coercion but held that the relevant issue concerned the data stored on the phones rather than the decryption key itself. Those data existed independently of the applicant's will and, since the phones had been seized, could in principle have been accessed by technical means. The Court also referred to several safeguards under French law, including the involvement of a judicial authority, prior information on the consequences of refusal, and the need to establish that the device had been used in connection with the offence and that the suspect knew the decryption key. The Article 8 complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Romania

Entry into force of Law no. 94/2026 (10 June 2026) amending the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code

Law No. 94/2026 amending the Criminal Procedure Code, which entered into force on 13 June 2026, constitutes a targeted legislative intervention aimed at remedying a constitutional deficiency identified by the Constitutional Court of Romania. The amendment primarily concerns the scope of the final appeal on law (extraordinary remedy), as provided for under Article 438 (1) point 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The key amendment consists in extending the admissibility of final appeal on law so as to cover not only situations in which the court has erroneously ordered the termination of criminal proceedings but also cases in which the court has unjustifiably failed to order such termination despite the existence of a legal ground. This legislative change is in accordance with Constitutional Court Decision No. 50/2025, which held that the previous wording was unconstitutional insofar as it excluded the defendant from accessing this extraordinary remedy in cases where the criminal proceedings should have been discontinued.

Accordingly, Law No. 94/2026 seeks to eliminate such inequality.

Germany: reform of corporate criminal liability (Sections 30 and 130 of the German Administrative Offences Act)

On 12 June 2026, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) delivered its opinion on the Federal Government's bill transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The Government's draft also includes amendments to the corporate sanctions regime under the German Act on Regulatory Offences (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten, OWiG), including an increase in the maximum corporate fine to EUR 40m for intentional offences and EUR 20m for negligent offences.

The German Federal Council adopted two proposals that go beyond the Government's draft. First, compliance measures are to be expressly recognised as a mitigating factor in the assessment of corporate fines under Section 30 OWiG. Second, Section 130 OWiG is to be supplemented by core elements of adequate supervisory and compliance measures. These include the careful selection, instruction and supervision of employees and supervisory personnel, the regular identification and assessment of risks of criminal and regulatory violations, the adoption and development of internal policies and employee training, a confidential whistleblowing procedure, and the investigation of suspected violations and punishment of misconduct. A further proposal, which would have introduced a mandatory reduction in fines in exchange for cooperating with prosecuting authorities and furnishing results from internal investigations, was not adopted.