AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Anna Zeitlinger, Gabriel Lansky, Philip Goeth and Konstantin Oppolzer, Lansky Ganzger Goeth + Partner Rechtsanwälte GmbH
the national implementation of EU and UN sanctions and clarifies the interaction between criminal and administrative enforcement. In practice, sanctions violations may trigger liability under both the Austrian Sanctions Act and the Foreign Trade Act, particu - larly where export restrictions on dual-use or military goods are involved. Depending on the applicable legal basis, limitation periods and available penalties differ considerably, highlighting the importance of correctly classifying the alleged infringement at an early stage of any investigation. Change of the Competent Sanctions Authority (NCA) From 2026, the competence for the release of fro - zen funds and for other related matters (eg, reporting obligations reg frozen assets) shifted from the Aus - trian National Bank to the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA). Applicants who wish to release frozen funds held with the Austrian financial institutions must address their request online through the “incoming platform” of the FMA. Preliminary Ruling of CJEU on the Limits of Freeze of Shareholder Rights of a Sanctioned Person In terms of court decisions, a ruling issued by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in relation to the shareholder rights of sanctioned persons concerned also an Austrian case. Though the CJEU ruling con - cerned questions submitted for a preliminary ruling by a Dutch court (C-465/24, SBK Art), an Austrian court referred essentially the same questions to the CJEU, namely, to what extent shareholder rights of a sanctioned person must be frozen. After the CJEU decided in the Dutch case that essentially all share - holder rights must be fully and unconditionally frozen, including the right to attend a shareholder meeting and cast a vote, the Austrian case became obsolete and was withdrawn because the ruling in the Dutch case applied to the Austrian cases accordingly. In general, rulings of the CJEU impact Austria direct - ly, especially when the CJEU interprets EU sanctions law. A noteworthy decision by the CJEU concerned “ownership” and “control” (C-84/24, EM Systems). The CJEU confirmed that assets owned by a non- listed legal entity which is in turn owned for 50 percent or more by a sanctioned person may be presumed
“controlled” by the sanctioned person, and, thus, be frozen. The concerned non-listed entity may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that all or part of the assets are not in fact controlled by the sanctioned person. 3.2 Future Developments Austria was admonished by the EU Commission for not having timely implemented the Directive (EU) 2024/1226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the definition of crimi - nal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures. It can be expected that Austria will fully implement the Directive (EU) 2024/1226 into national law sooner to avoid the European Commis - sion initiating infringement procedures and referring the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union with a request for financial sanctions. Austria does not have a unilateral national list of des - ignated persons because Austria does not impose unilateral sanctions. Persons designated by the European Union under the applicable EU sanctions regimes are deemed as “sanctioned” in Austria as a consequence of direct implementation of EU-Reg - ulations. The delisting procedure takes place at the level of the court of the European Union, namely, the General Court and the Court of the European Union. Whereas, the General Court hears delisting cases in the first instance, the Court of the European Union is the appeals court for such cases. To launch a case, the designated person lodges an action for annul - ment of the listing acts (ie, the legal act by which the designated person was included in the annex to the applicable sanctions regulation). In addition to the court proceeding, a designated person may address the Council of the European Union in a request for reconsideration. In such request, the Council of the European Union may review the listing grounds and reconsider the designation. 4.2 Remedies 4. Delisting Challenges 4.1 Process A successful delisting challenge in the Union Courts can lead to the removal of the designated person from
35 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook