How to Comply with Competition Law in the Czech Republic (2026): Úohs‑recognised Compliance Programmes and How to Reduce Fines

Last updated: 7 July 2026

Understanding how to comply with competition law in the Czech Republic has become materially more rewarding since the Office for the Protection of Competition (Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže, or ÚOHS) introduced its Notice on compliance programmes, effective 1 January 2024. Under that Notice, companies that maintain an effective competition compliance programme may receive up to a 10 % reduction of the basic fine amount when ÚOHS determines an infringement has occurred. For in‑house counsel and compliance officers operating in or from the Czech market, the Notice transforms a compliance programme from a mere best‑practice aspiration into a concrete, quantifiable asset during enforcement proceedings.

This guide maps every element ÚOHS expects, supplies sample documentation frameworks, and provides a step‑by‑step implementation plan designed to satisfy the regulator’s evidential standards.

Quick Answer, Can an ÚOHS Compliance Programme Reduce Fines?

Yes. The ÚOHS Notice on compliance programmes expressly recognises that an effective competition compliance programme may constitute a mitigating circumstance in administrative proceedings concerning prohibited agreements and abuse of dominance. Where a company demonstrates that its programme meets the authority’s substantive and procedural criteria, ÚOHS may reduce the basic fine by up to 10 %. The reduction is not automatic; it depends on the programme’s design, implementation depth, evidence quality, and, critically, the timing of adoption relative to the investigation.

The Czech Competition Act (Act No. 143/2001 Coll.) empowers ÚOHS to impose fines of up to 10 % of a company’s net annual turnover. Even a modest percentage reduction against that ceiling can translate into significant savings. Industry observers expect the practical effect of the Notice to be a steady increase in the number of companies proactively investing in ÚOHS‑compliant programmes, both to reduce potential exposure and to embed a culture of lawful conduct across commercial operations.

The sections below explain exactly how the authority assesses programmes, what antitrust compliance program requirements you must satisfy, and how to build the documentary trail that turns your policy from paper into enforceable mitigation credit.

How ÚOHS Assesses Compliance Programmes, Legal Basis and Mitigation Mechanics

The legal foundation rests on two pillars. First, the Czech Competition Act provides ÚOHS with discretion to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances when setting fines. Second, the ÚOHS Notice on compliance programmes, published in late 2023 and effective from 1 January 2024, codifies the criteria under which a competition compliance programme qualifies for that mitigating treatment. ÚOHS has also referenced the European Commission’s guidance on competition compliance, which encourages national competition authorities to reward genuine, evidence‑backed compliance efforts.

Under the Notice, the authority distinguishes between programmes that were already in place before an investigation commenced and those adopted or materially strengthened after the company became aware of proceedings. A programme that pre‑dates the investigation carries greater weight because it signals a genuine, proactive commitment to lawful conduct rather than a reactive response to enforcement pressure. Programmes introduced after the opening of proceedings may still be considered, but ÚOHS will apply a more rigorous evidential standard and any reduction is likely to be lower.

The quantitative cap of up to 10 % applies to the basic fine amount, that is, the fine calculated before adjustments for leniency, settlement or recidivism. The compliance reduction is therefore applied at a different stage in the fine calculation from leniency discounts, and the two mechanisms can, in principle, operate cumulatively. However, companies should note the interaction rules carefully: ÚOHS leniency guidance makes clear that the leniency programme remains the primary tool for cartel participants who self‑report, and a compliance programme alone will not substitute for a leniency application where one is warranted.

When Will ÚOHS Not Grant Mitigation?

ÚOHS will decline to grant compliance credit in several scenarios:

• Superficial or “paper‑only” programmes. A policy document that exists but has never been communicated, trained on, or audited will not qualify.
• Programmes adopted solely in response to enforcement. Where the timing and documentation make clear the programme was created purely to secure a fine reduction after the investigation began, ÚOHS will view it sceptically.
• Management complicity. If senior management directed or knowingly tolerated the infringement, the compliance programme is treated as having failed at its most critical level, significantly undermining any mitigation claim.
• Absence of evidence. ÚOHS requires contemporaneous documentary proof. Oral assertions that training occurred or that policies were circulated will not suffice without supporting records.

How to Comply with Competition Law, The 7 Core Requirements of an Antitrust Compliance Programme

Drawing on the ÚOHS Notice and the European Commission’s compliance guidance, the following seven elements form the backbone of any competition compliance programme in the Czech Republic. Each element is paired with the evidence artefacts ÚOHS expects to see.

1. Board‑Level Commitment and Resourcing

The statutory body, the board of directors or managing director of an s.r.o., must formally endorse the compliance programme and allocate adequate resources (budget, personnel, reporting authority). ÚOHS looks for board minutes or resolutions documenting the decision, an organisational chart showing the compliance function’s independence, and a named compliance owner with direct access to management.

2. Written Competition Law Compliance Policy

A clear, accessible policy document must define prohibited conduct (price‑fixing, market allocation, bid‑rigging, information exchanges, abuse of dominance), explain legal consequences, and set out expected employee behaviour. The policy should carry the signature of the statutory body and include a version‑control log demonstrating regular review. Sample clause language might state: “No employee may enter into any agreement, understanding or concerted practice with a competitor concerning prices, customers, territories or output without prior written clearance from the Compliance Officer.”

3. Risk Assessment and Controls

Every programme must be grounded in a risk assessment tailored to the company’s industry, market position, and commercial relationships. A risk register should map specific competition risks, such as exposure to trade‑association meetings, joint ventures with competitors, or distribution arrangements, and assign control measures. For companies active in sectors with a history of cartel enforcement (e.g., construction, automotive parts, food processing), the risk map should reflect heightened scrutiny.

4. Training and Awareness Programme

Targeted training is the most visible indicator of a living programme. ÚOHS expects training to cover executives, commercial and sales teams, procurement staff, and anyone involved in M&A or joint ventures. Attendance logs, assessment scores, and training materials should be retained. The authority values programmes that test understanding, not merely attendance, and that refresh knowledge on at least an annual cycle.

5. Reporting and Whistleblowing Channels

Employees must have access to a confidential, ideally anonymous, channel for reporting suspected competition‑law breaches. The channel should be documented (hotline number, online form, or ombudsman contact), and case logs must track every report, investigation outcome, and remedial action. Czech whistleblower‑protection legislation adds an additional compliance layer that should be integrated with competition reporting.

6. Internal Audits and Monitoring

Periodic audits, both scheduled and ad hoc, demonstrate that the programme is not static. ÚOHS values documented audit plans, findings reports, remediation tracking, and follow‑up verification. Audit scope should include a review of commercial correspondence, pricing decisions, trade‑association participation, and information exchanges with competitors.

7. Sanctions and Incentives for Compliance

The programme must include a documented disciplinary framework linking competition‑law violations to concrete consequences (warnings, suspension, termination, clawback of bonuses). Conversely, positive incentives, such as compliance KPIs in performance reviews, reinforce the message that the company rewards lawful behaviour.

Competition Compliance Training in the Czech Republic, Practical Design, Frequency and Records

Training is where many programmes either prove their value or reveal their weakness. ÚOHS scrutinises not just whether training exists, but who received it, how comprehension was tested, and whether it was refreshed over time.

Target Audiences and Curriculum

A well‑designed competition compliance training curriculum should differentiate between audience tiers:

• Executive leadership. Focus on personal liability, dawn‑raid procedures, board‑level obligations and the reputational cost of infringements.
• Commercial and sales teams. Emphasise cartel red flags, pricing discussions with competitors, information‑exchange rules and trade‑association meeting protocols.
• Procurement. Cover bid‑rigging indicators, supplier interactions and joint purchasing arrangements.
• M&A and business development. Address pre‑notification gun‑jumping rules, information barriers during due diligence, and post‑merger integration compliance.

Frequency and Format

Early indications from ÚOHS enforcement practice suggest the authority regards annual refresher training as the minimum acceptable frequency. New joiners should receive training within their first 90 days. A blended format, combining e‑learning modules with live, scenario‑based workshops, tends to produce higher engagement and more credible assessment scores.

Training Log Template

Maintain a structured log with the following columns for each session:

Audit Design and Remediation

Internal audits of competition compliance should occur at least annually, with a more targeted review following any significant market event (new joint venture, trade‑association membership, or acquisition). An independent third‑party audit every two to three years adds credibility. Audit findings must be tracked in a remediation log, open items, assigned owners, target closure dates, and verification evidence, to demonstrate that the programme self‑corrects rather than merely self‑diagnoses.

Governance, Sanctions, Third Parties and M&A

Governance Structure

ÚOHS expects a governance model with clear reporting lines. Industry best practice, aligned with the European Commission’s compliance recommendations, distinguishes three lines:

• First line: Business units own day‑to‑day compliance decisions (pricing, negotiations, trade‑association participation).
• Second line: A dedicated Compliance Officer (or competition compliance committee) monitors, trains and advises.
• Third line: Internal Audit provides independent assurance and reports to the board or supervisory board.

Third‑Party Risk Management

Distributor and dealer agreements are frequent vectors for competition‑law risk. Contracts with commercial partners should include competition compliance representations, a right to audit, and a termination clause triggered by a partner’s competition‑law breach. Pre‑appointment questionnaires for distributors, agents and joint‑venture partners help document due diligence.

M&A, Preserving Mitigation Credit

When acquiring a Czech business, competition due diligence should assess the target’s exposure to cartel risk, any pending ÚOHS proceedings, and the state of the target’s own compliance programme. Documenting this diligence, and integrating the target into the acquirer’s compliance framework promptly post‑closing, preserves the acquirer’s ability to claim competition authority fine mitigation if legacy issues surface.

Evidence Checklist, What to Prepare for ÚOHS and How to Present It

If ÚOHS opens an investigation, your compliance team must be able to produce a structured evidence package quickly. The table below provides a sample evidence index that maps each artefact to its storage location, the reason ÚOHS values it, and the recommended retention format.

Maintaining this evidence index as a living document, updated quarterly, ensures that your ÚOHS compliance programme can be demonstrated at short notice, whether in response to a dawn raid or a formal information request.

Implementation Timeline, Sample 90‑Day and 12‑Month Plans

First 90 Days (Foundation Phase)

1. Weeks 1–2: Secure board endorsement and appoint a Compliance Officer. Record the resolution.
2. Weeks 3–5: Conduct industry‑specific competition risk assessment. Produce a risk register.
3. Weeks 5–7: Draft and circulate the written competition law compliance policy. Collect signed acknowledgements.
4. Weeks 7–10: Launch a reporting / whistleblowing channel. Communicate it company‑wide.
5. Weeks 10–12: Deliver first‑wave training to executive leadership and high‑risk commercial teams.

12‑Month Roadmap (Embedding Phase)

1. Months 4–6: Roll out training to all remaining target audiences (procurement, M&A, support functions).
2. Month 6: Conduct first internal audit of the programme. Document findings and initiate remediation.
3. Months 7–9: Integrate compliance clauses into distributor, dealer and JV agreements. Administer partner questionnaires.
4. Month 9: Refresh risk register based on audit findings and market developments.
5. Month 12: Complete first annual training cycle. Report programme KPIs to the board. Begin planning the independent third‑party audit.

Compliance Obligations by Entity Type, Comparison Table

Not every company requires the same depth of programme. The table below provides a proportionate framework showing the minimum competition compliance artefacts ÚOHS is likely to expect, scaled by entity type and risk profile.

Conclusion

Knowing how to comply with competition law in the Czech Republic now carries a measurable financial upside. The ÚOHS Notice on compliance programmes has created a transparent framework: companies that invest in genuine, evidence‑backed compliance, from board‑level commitment through training, audits and disciplinary sanctions, can seek a tangible reduction in the fines they face if an infringement is found. The seven core requirements outlined above, supported by the evidence checklist and implementation timeline in this guide, give compliance teams a clear blueprint for building or upgrading a programme that meets the authority’s expectations.

For companies already operating a competition compliance programme in the Czech Republic, the priority should be an evidence audit: confirming that every element is documented, current, and retrievable at short notice. For those starting from scratch, the 90‑day foundation plan offers an accelerated path to a credible baseline. To discuss programme design or review with a competition law specialist, find a qualified competition lawyer through the Global Law Experts directory.

Sources

1. ÚOHS, Notice on Compliance Programmes (PDF)
2. ÚOHS, Zohlednění compliance programu ve správním řízení
3. ÚOHS, Leniency Programme
4. Czech Competition Act (Act No. 143/2001 Coll.), Consolidated Text
5. European Commission, Competition Compliance Guidance
6. Czech Government Portal, Leniency Filing Summary