30.11.2022 | KPMG Law Insights

Transparency register: ECJ ruling – rejection of public access to the transparency register?


With the introduction of the transparency register as of October 2017, all companies domiciled in Germany were required to report their beneficial owners to the newly created register. The initial facilitation of the availability of the relevant data, e.g. in the commercial register, has ceased to exist this year at the latest with the conversion of the transparency register to a so-called full register.

In order to retrieve data from the transparency register, a legitimate interest still had to be proven first. With a revision of the AMLA on January 1, 2020 due to the European Money Laundering Directive, this hurdle has been removed: Since January 1, 2020, every:r has the possibility to inspect the transparency register.

The registration required for this at the online portal is not a significant hurdle. Even the partially anonymized data (birthday / place of residence) can be completed in many cases via other registers, especially since since August 1, 2022, electronic access to the commercial register (and all historical data and documents stored there) is also possible for any:n without registration and free of charge.

Access to sensitive personal data and financial circumstances has thus been made much easier. However, the legislator’s (understandable) efforts to ensure the transparency of assets for the purpose of combating money laundering are simultaneously offset by a considerable risk of abuse. In many cases, there is also an interest in secrecy with regard to the group of shareholders for strategic or competitive reasons.

The administration and legislators have not responded to the corresponding criticism from business associations. Hope has therefore now been given by the ECJ’s decision on a case from Luxembourg.

Recent ECJ decision

In its judgment of November 22, 2022 (Judgment of November 22, 2022; Case No. C-37/20, C-601/20), the ECJ finds that the provision of the Money Laundering Directive that requires member states to make beneficial ownership information available to all members of the public in all cases without proof of a legitimate interest is invalid.

The background to the judgment are actions brought by a Luxembourg company and its beneficial owner against a company established in accordance with the 4. and 5th Money Laundering Directive entered into force in Luxembourg to establish a Luxembourg Transparency Register. The plaintiffs had initially applied unsuccessfully to the national transparency register to restrict the general public’s access to the information concerning them.

The ECJ states that free access to beneficial ownership information by all members of the public constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to protection of personal data enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  • The ECJ explicitly emphasizes that making this information publicly available enables a potentially unlimited number of persons to obtain a more or less comprehensive profile with certain personal identification data, the financial situation of the data subject, and the economic sectors, countries and specific companies in which he or she has invested.
  • In addition, the possible consequences for data subjects of any misuse of their personal data are exacerbated by the fact that, once made available to the public, such data could not only be freely accessed but also retained and (permanently) disseminated.

According to the ECJ, the objective of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing also does not justify interference with the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Even if access to the transparency register is made dependent on online registration (as is the case in Germany), this is not sufficient, in the view of the ECJ, to safeguard the need of data subjects to protect their personal data against the risk of misuse.


The judgment of the ECJ is legally binding and has a comprehensive binding effect – also at the national level. This will force the legislator to respond to the criticism expressed by business associations and practitioners of the low-threshold, electronically easily accessible data retrieval from transparency registers (and possibly commercial registers). One approach would be to return to the “old” model consisting of online registration and proof of legitimate interest.

In the meantime, possible effects on the visibility of shareholders should be taken into account in the course of restructuring under company law or succession planning.

Our experts will be happy to advise you on all questions relating to the transparency register.

Explore #more

13.06.2024 | Press releases

Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers honor KPMG Law Experts

Best Lawyers has once again identified the best commercial lawyers in Germany for 2024 exclusively for Handelsblatt. A total of 28 lawyers were honored by…

27.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Agreement on ecodesign regulation: products to become more sustainable

After lengthy negotiations, the Council and Parliament of the European Union reached a provisional agreement on the Ecodesign Regulation on the night of December 5,…

22.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

The AI Act is coming: EU wants to get a grip on AI risks

For many people, artificial intelligence (AI) is the great hope for business, healthcare and science. But there are also plenty of critics who fear the…

17.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Podcast series “KPMG Law on air”: When the family business is to be sold

Around 38,000 family businesses are currently handed over each year. In most cases, the change of ownership takes place within the family. But more and…

03.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Doubts about inability to work? What employers can do

The certificate of incapacity for work (AU certificate) serves as proof of incapacity for work due to illness. However, only if the certificate meets certain…

27.03.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

EU Buildings Directive: life cycle greenhouse potential becomes relevant

On March 12, 2024, the EU Parliament approved the amendment to the EU Buildings Directive. The directive obliges member states and, indirectly, building owners and…

19.03.2024 | Business Performance & Resilience, KPMG Law Insights

CSDDD: Provisional agreement on the EU Supply Chain Directive

The EU member states agreed on the CSDDD, the EU Supply Chain Directive, on March 15, 2024. Germany abstained from the vote. Negotiators from the…

21.02.2024 | KPMG Law Insights, KPMG Law Insights

The Digital Services Act – what does it mean for companies?

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is a key component of the EU’s digital strategy and came into force on November 16, 2022. As a regulation,…

15.02.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Data compliance management: How to implement it in practice

Part 3 of the article series “Professional tips for data compliance management”   The third part of this series of articles deals with data compliance

14.02.2024 | Business Performance & Resilience, PR Publications

Guest article in ZURe: Monitoring the implementation of the LkSG

The current issue of ZURe (p. 20 ff.) contains a guest article by KPMG Law Partner Thomas Uhlig (Head of General Business and Commercial Law),…


Arndt Rodatz

Head of Criminal Tax Law

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

tel: +49 40 360994 5081

Christian Judis

Senior Manager

Friedenstraße 10
81671 München

tel: +49 89 59976061028

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.