How to Respond to a UOHS Investigation in the Czech Republic (step‑by‑step, 2026 Update)

Understanding how to respond to a UOHS investigation in the Czech Republic is now a critical operational skill for any company active on the Czech market. The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS), the Czech Competition Authority, can compel undertakings to produce documents, submit to on‑site inspections, and answer formal information requests at any stage of an investigation. The 2026 amendment to the Competition Act has materially expanded these powers, introducing a new market‑investigation tool, a merger call‑in mechanism, enhanced manager‑level liability provisions, and an anonymous reporting tool that is expected to increase the volume of tip‑driven investigations.

This guide walks general counsel, compliance officers, and senior managers through the complete Czech Competition Authority procedure, from the moment a request arrives to post‑submission follow‑up, with timelines, a documents checklist, cost guidance, and a dedicated section on the 2026 reform changes.

Last reviewed: 15 June 2026, updated for the 2026 Competition Act amendment.

Overview of the UOHS Investigation Process and Who It Applies To

ÚOHS enforces the Czech Competition Act (Act No. 143/2001 Coll., as amended) and applies Articles 101 and 102 TFEU where conduct has an effect on trade between EU Member States. The authority can initiate proceedings on its own motion, on the basis of a complaint, or, since the 2026 reform, through leads received via its confidential reporting tool. All undertakings with a nexus to the Czech market, together with their managers and trade associations, fall within the scope of ÚOHS enforcement powers.

Types of ÚOHS Enforcement Actions

• Information requests (RfIs). Formal written demands requiring the addressee to supply specified documents, data, or explanations within a stated deadline. This is the most common first contact and the primary focus of this guide.
• Market inquiries (competition tool). Under the 2026 amendment, ÚOHS may open sector‑wide investigations that do not presuppose a specific infringement. Affected companies may be asked to supply market data and respond to a draft report during the public comment process.
• Dawn raids (unannounced inspections). On‑site inspections at business premises, carried out without prior notice and sometimes coordinated with the European Commission. Obstruction of inspectors is a separate offence.
• Statements of objections (SoO). Formal allegations of a competition infringement accompanied by the authority’s evidence file, giving the undertaking an opportunity to respond before a final decision.

The 2026 reform reinforces personal liability for individual managers who direct or permit anticompetitive conduct, making this guide relevant at both company and board level. For a broader overview of the competition law practice area, consult the Global Law Experts directory.

Eligibility and Prerequisites, Who Must Respond

Every entity or natural person named in a ÚOHS information request is legally obliged to respond within the stated deadline. There is no minimum‑size threshold: sole traders, small enterprises, multinational subsidiaries, managers acting in a personal capacity, and trade associations are all within scope. Foreign companies must respond if the request concerns conduct with effects on the Czech market, for instance, sales to Czech customers, participation in Czech public tenders, or supply‑chain arrangements with a Czech nexus.

Before engaging with ÚOHS, the addressee should secure certain internal prerequisites:

• Board and senior‑management notification. Ensure the C‑suite and, where applicable, the parent‑company legal team are informed within 24 hours of receipt.
• External competition counsel. Appoint or activate a qualified Czech competition lawyer immediately. A directory of Czech Republic lawyers is available on the GLE platform.
• Data‑protection and communications readiness. Coordinate with the DPO (personal data will likely be in scope) and prepare a holding statement for any press inquiries.

Step‑by‑Step Procedure: How to Respond to a UOHS Investigation

The following eight‑step procedure covers the full lifecycle of a UOHS information request in the Czech Republic, from intake through post‑submission monitoring. Each step identifies the responsible owner and a practical duration. Adapt the sequence where the matter involves a dawn raid or statement of objections, those scenarios are addressed in Steps 7 and 8.

Step 1, Immediate Intake and Evidence Preservation (First 0–48 Hours)

The moment a UOHS information request is received, initiate a litigation hold across every potentially responsive data set. Practically this means:

• Log the date, delivery method, and every page or attachment received; scan to a secure, access‑controlled folder.
• Issue an IT preservation notice: suspend all automated deletion, archiving, and rotation policies for the data categories described in the request.
• Segregate privileged communications: instruct custodians not to forward, delete, or alter any communications with external legal counsel.
• Notify external competition counsel and instruct them to review the request within 24 hours.
• Open a contemporaneous communications log, every substantive call, email, or meeting relating to the investigation should be recorded from this point onward.

Step 2, Triage and Scope Mapping (Day 2–5)

Working with external counsel, map the scope of the request against the organisation’s data landscape:

• Identify the specific date ranges, product markets, geographic scope, and individuals (custodians) covered by the request.
• Estimate the volume of potentially responsive documents and data sets.
• Assign a document‑collection owner for each custodian or data source.
• Flag cross‑border data‑transfer issues, GDPR considerations, or parallel proceedings that could complicate or delay production.

Step 3, Privilege and Legal Review (Day 3–10)

External counsel should lead a structured privilege review. Under Czech law, legal privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an external lawyer (advokát) made for the purpose of providing or receiving legal advice. Industry observers note that communications with in‑house counsel and internal investigation materials may not attract the same protection, this area of Czech practice continues to evolve. For each potentially privileged document:

• Create a privilege log entry recording the document title, date, author, recipient, and the specific basis for the claim.
• Identify commercially sensitive information (trade secrets, customer lists) that may warrant a separate confidentiality claim.
• Prepare formal privilege claim language for inclusion in the cover letter to ÚOHS.

Step 4, Document Collection and Production (Day 7–21)

Collect responsive documents from all identified custodians and systems. Where the volume is substantial, engage a specialist e‑discovery vendor for collection, processing, and review. Ensure:

• Documents are produced in the format specified by ÚOHS (typically electronic copies; certified paper copies only if expressly requested).
• Czech translations of key foreign‑language documents are prepared where the request requires them.
• A production log records every document provided, with unique identifiers to enable future tracking.

Step 5, Draft and Send the Formal Reply (3–7 Days After Collection)

The formal reply should be drafted by external counsel and signed off by the general counsel. It should include: a structured response to each question or document category in the request; an index of all documents produced; any privilege claims supported by the privilege log; any confidentiality claims; and a clear statement of continued cooperation.

Step 6, Request an Extension (If Needed)

If the reply deadline is insufficient, which is common where more than 10,000 documents are in scope, translation is required, or data resides in another jurisdiction, file a reasoned extension request with ÚOHS as early as possible. Cite specific grounds such as document volume, cross‑border data retrieval, translation needs, or the complexity of the legal privilege assessment. ÚOHS has discretion to grant extensions and generally accommodates well‑reasoned requests submitted before the original deadline expires.

Step 7, Post‑Submission Follow‑Up and Record Keeping

After submission, confirm receipt with ÚOHS and request written acknowledgement. Maintain the litigation hold until the matter is formally closed. Track any supplementary requests or follow‑up questions, responding within the deadlines set. Update the company’s internal compliance remediation plan to address any weaknesses the investigation has revealed.

Step 8, Prepare for Escalation: Statement of Objections, Dawn Raid, or Leniency

If the investigation escalates, ÚOHS issues a statement of objections, conducts a dawn raid, or indicates a cartel suspicion, the response intensifies immediately:

• Escalate to senior external litigation counsel.
• Preserve the full chain of custody for all documentary evidence.
• Activate the company’s media and public‑relations plan; coordinate all messaging through legal counsel.
• Evaluate whether a leniency application, settlement proposal, or voluntary remedial offer is appropriate. Timing is critical, coordinate with EU‑level counsel where the conduct has a cross‑border dimension.

Required Documents and Information

A UOHS information request will typically call for a broad range of documents. The exact scope varies by case, but the checklist below captures the categories most frequently demanded. Preparing these documents in advance, as part of a standing competition compliance file, significantly reduces the investigation timeline and the operational burden on the response team.

Note on legal privilege at ÚOHS: Under Czech law, privilege protects communications between a client and an external lawyer (advokát) made for the purpose of legal advice. Documents created solely by in‑house counsel, or internal investigation memoranda prepared without external counsel involvement, may not attract the same level of protection. Always prepare a detailed privilege log and assert claims expressly in the cover letter accompanying the production. Where privilege is disputed, ÚOHS may seek a judicial determination, making precise documentation of the privilege basis essential from the outset.

Investigation Timeline and Key Deadlines

Deadlines in a ÚOHS investigation are case‑specific and stated on each written request. The table below provides the ranges typically encountered in practice. The 2026 reform extends the public comment window for market inquiry draft reports, giving affected parties more time to prepare substantive economic and legal submissions, but also introducing additional procedural stages that require proactive engagement.

Always verify the exact reply deadline stated on the formal notice. An extension request filed before the deadline expires is far more likely to succeed than one submitted after the deadline has already passed.

Costs, Fees, and Tax Considerations

ÚOHS does not typically charge administrative fees for receiving or processing responses to information requests or market inquiries. The direct costs of responding are borne entirely by the addressee and vary significantly depending on the scope and complexity of the investigation.

Where an investigation reveals potential corrective pricing adjustments or profit restatements, involve tax and accounting counsel promptly to manage fiscal consequences.

What Changes in 2026: The Competition Act Reform and How to Respond to a UOHS Investigation Under the New Rules

The 2026 amendment to the Czech Competition Act represents the most significant overhaul of the enforcement framework in over a decade. For companies preparing to respond to a UOHS investigation in the Czech Republic, the reform carries three practical consequences that require immediate compliance‑programme updates.

New Market Investigation Tool and Extended Public Comment Process

ÚOHS has gained a formal “competition tool” enabling it to open sector‑wide market inquiries without first identifying a specific infringement. These inquiries culminate in a draft report on which affected undertakings may comment. The 2026 reform extends the public comment process, with windows commonly ranging from 30 to 60 calendar days. Companies should treat a market inquiry 2026 request with the same seriousness as a traditional investigation: prepare economic and legal submissions early, and engage external counsel to coordinate the public comment.

Enhanced Investigative Powers and Manager Liability

The amendment equips ÚOHS with expanded investigative instruments, including a call‑in mechanism for merger control that allows the authority to require prior notification of transactions falling below standard thresholds where competition concerns exist. Early indications suggest ÚOHS will deploy this power selectively, focusing on digital and technology markets. The reform also strengthens the basis for imposing personal liability on managers who direct or permit anticompetitive conduct. Companies should update preservation and privilege protocols to cover manager‑level communications and ensure board members receive competition law training.

Anonymous and Confidential Reporting Tool

ÚOHS has launched an anonymous and confidential reporting tool for suspected competition infringements. The likely practical effect is an increase in whistleblower‑originated investigations. Companies should review and, where necessary, upgrade their internal reporting channels to ensure suspected issues are surfaced and resolved internally before a regulator complaint materialises.

Actionable steps for compliance teams:

• Revise litigation‑hold templates to expressly cover “market inquiry” data categories.
• Include market inquiry response procedures in the competition compliance manual.
• Coordinate multi‑jurisdictional counsel where a call‑in merger review or cross‑border investigation is possible.
• Brief the board on updated manager‑liability exposure under the 2026 amendment.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

• Delayed preservation. Failing to issue an immediate litigation hold risks the destruction or alteration of responsive data, even inadvertently through automated deletion. Remedy: issue the hold within 24 hours and confirm in writing with IT.
• Over‑redaction or withholding non‑privileged documents. Blanket redactions without proper justification undermine credibility and may prompt ÚOHS to escalate. Remedy: produce all non‑privileged responsive documents and support any redactions with a detailed privilege log.
• Failing to request an extension early. An extension request filed after the deadline has passed is unlikely to be received favourably. Remedy: submit a reasoned request as soon as the scope assessment indicates the original deadline is unachievable.
• Poor coordination with foreign counsel. Cross‑border data transfers, parallel proceedings, and conflicting disclosure obligations require careful management. Remedy: appoint a lead external counsel to coordinate the multi‑jurisdictional response from the outset.
• Mishandling communications with competitors. Ongoing contacts with competitors during an investigation can create the appearance of continued coordination. Remedy: log all competitor interactions and route them through external counsel for legal review.

Sources

1. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS), Official Website
2. ÚOHS, Reporting Tool for Anonymous and Confidential Reporting (Press Release)
3. ÚOHS, Legislation Page
4. Havel & Partners, Major Amendment to Competition Act (June 2026)
5. Schoenherr, Overhaul of Czech Competition Enforcement (April 2026)
6. Wolters Kluwer, Czech Competition Enforcement Facing Major Changes
7. AK Vych, Commentary on New ÚOHS Investigative Tools