Decision of the VG Köln on Access to the Transparency Register
The Verwaltungsgericht Köln (VG Köln, Administrative Court of Cologne) ruled in its judgment of 7 May 2026, case no. 13 K 1037/22, on the complete restriction of access to the Transparency Register. The subject of the proceedings was whether a beneficial owner may, due to particular risk circumstances, demand that his information retrievable in the Transparency Register be fully protected from general access.
According to the decision, a legitimate interest in a complete restriction may exist if the Transparency Register discloses additional risk-relevant information compared with other registers. This applies in particular where such additional information establishes an abstract and significantly increased risk for a person publicly known to be very wealthy.
Facts: Beneficial Owner of an Asset-Managing KG
Information in the Transparency Register
The claimant was the general partner of a Kommanditgesellschaft (KG, German limited partnership). Another general partner was his sister; the sole limited partner was his daughter. The company was entered in the Transparency Register. The claimant was listed there as a beneficial owner with an interest in the association, in particular in the voting rights, and with a voting rights quota of 42.9%.
The name of the limited partnership contained no reference to the family name. However, the business name included the addition “Vermögensverwaltung” (asset management).
Particular Risk Circumstances in the Family Environment
The claimant came from a family publicly known to be very wealthy. In the wider family circle, there had been an extortionate kidnapping as well as a homicide committed against his sister. Information disclosure blocks existed in the residents’ register for the claimant and the limited partner.
Against this background, the claimant applied to the register-keeping body for a complete restriction of access to the Transparency Register. He argued that legitimate interests stood in the way of publication.
Initially, a provisional block was put in place. Later, the competent body rejected the application. As grounds, it stated that, with the exception of the voting rights, the published information could also be obtained from the commercial register. In its view, therefore, there were no circumstances increasing the risk.
Court Decision: Entitlement to Complete Restriction
Legitimate Interest of the Claimant
The Verwaltungsgericht Köln upheld the action. It found that the claimant, as beneficial owner, had a claim to a complete restriction of access under § 23 Abs. 2 GwG (German Anti-Money Laundering Act).
The court first focused on a legitimate interest of the claimant. The decisive factor was that the claimant belonged to a publicly known wealthy family and that serious criminal offences had occurred in the wider family circle. From this, the court derived an abstract risk of becoming the victim of one of the criminal offences referred to in § 23 Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 1 GwG.
In the court’s view, this risk was significantly increased by the voting rights quota visible in the Transparency Register. Precisely this information was not shown in the commercial register in the same way.
No Bar to Restriction Due to Information in Other Registers
The Verwaltungsgericht rejected an exclusion of the restriction under § 23 Abs. 2 Satz 3 GwG. In its assessment, the nature and extent of the economic interest were not fully apparent from the commercial register.
A merely partial overlap of the information was not sufficient for the court. The decisive point was that the Transparency Register contained additional information that was relevant for the risk assessment. The voting rights quota therefore constituted additional information that, in the specific case, was significant for the risk situation.
Balancing of the Interests Concerned
Claimant’s Fundamental Rights Positions
The balancing of interests came out in favour of the claimant. In particular, the court included the risk to his physical integrity under Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG (German Basic Law) and to his property under Art. 14 Abs. 1 GG.
According to the decision, these legal interests affected increased the requirements for an interference with the right to informational self-determination. This right is derived from Art. 2 Abs. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG.
Public Interest in Combating Money Laundering
Set against this was the public interest in the transparency of the register and in combating money laundering. The court assessed this interest as abstract in the specific case.
In the view of the Verwaltungsgericht, the claimant’s specific need for protection prevailed. In doing so, the court also took into account that authorities and certain obliged entities under § 23 Abs. 2 Satz 4 GwG could continue to have unrestricted access. The restriction therefore did not affect all persons entitled to access.
Classification within the Case Law of the VG Köln
Several Decisions of the 13th Chamber on the Same Day
The judgment 13 K 1037/22 does not stand in isolation. It is part of a series of at least five decisions of the 13th Chamber of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln of 7 May 2026 concerning the Transparency Register. The following proceedings are mentioned:
- 13 K 1023/22
- 13 K 1024/22
- 13 K 1026/22
- 13 K 1031/22
- 13 K 1037/22
This indicates a clustered procedural context concerning questions of register access and its restriction. For the decision discussed here, however, only the specifically decided individual case remains decisive.
Earlier Decisions on the Causality of the Register Entry
The 13th Chamber had previously ruled differently in its judgment of 17 July 2024, case no. 13 K 5996/19. In that decision, the court stated that a restriction may be ruled out if a sufficiently reliable and secure information basis exists even without access to the Transparency Register. In such a case, the causality of the register entry for the asserted risk is lacking.
The decision of 7 May 2026 thus ties in with the question of whether the additional information in the Transparency Register in particular increases the risk. In the case decided here, the Verwaltungsgericht affirmed this register-related causality because of the voting rights quota visible there.
Already in its judgment of 5 September 2024, case no. 13 K 5433/19, the Verwaltungsgericht Köln had also emphasised that a restriction can impair the purposes of the Transparency Register only to a limited extent if the authorities responsible for combating money laundering and terrorism are not covered by the restriction. The decision of 7 May 2026 took up this idea again in substance.
Statutory Framework and Subsequent Amendments
New Version of § 23 GwG through the Standortfördergesetz
The parallel decision 13 K 1026/22 of 7 May 2026 expressly refers to the Standortfördergesetz (German Act to Promote Germany as a Business Location). This Act was promulgated in the Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I 2026 Nr. 33 (Federal Law Gazette Part I 2026 No. 33) on 9 February 2026 and amended the legal framework of the Transparency Register.
Through the Standortfördergesetz, § 23 GwG was completely recast. The amendments entered into force on 10 February 2026. Under the new version, any person who demonstrates a legitimate interest to the register-keeping body is entitled to inspect the Transparency Register, § 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 GwG n. F. (new version).
Basis of the Decision No Longer the Current Version of the Law
After the date of the judgment, § 23 GwG was amended again, namely by Art. 12 Abs. 4 of the Gesetz vom 29. Juni 2026 (Act of 29 June 2026). The legal basis of the judgment of 7 May 2026 therefore no longer corresponds to the current version of the law.
This remains significant for classifying the decision. However, the key considerations of the Verwaltungsgericht concerned the balancing between register transparency, the protection interests of beneficial owners and the question of whether it is precisely the additional information retrievable in the Transparency Register that significantly increases an abstract risk.
Significance for Beneficial Owners and Register-Keeping Bodies
Register-Related Additional Information as a Central Aspect
The decision makes clear that not every piece of information already available elsewhere automatically precludes a restriction. The decisive question is whether the Transparency Register contains additional information that is risk-relevant in terms of its specific informative value.
In the case decided, the decisive factor was the voting rights quota. In the court’s view, it was capable of significantly increasing the claimant’s risk because it allowed the nature and extent of his economic interest to be identified more precisely.
Fact-Specific Basis of the Individual Case
The Verwaltungsgericht relied on a concrete factual basis. The circumstances taken into account in the case included in particular:
- the public renown of a very wealthy family,
- serious criminal offences in the wider family circle,
- information disclosure blocks in the residents’ register,
- the additional visibility of the voting rights quota in the Transparency Register,
- the continuing possibility of access for authorities and certain obliged entities.
The court did not adopt a schematic approach. Rather, the decision is based on the connection between the particular personal risk situation and specific additional information under register law.
Transparency Register between Disclosure and Protection of Personality Rights
The judgment illustrates the tension between the legislature’s interest in transparency and the protection of individual legal positions. The Transparency Register serves to combat money laundering and to ensure the traceability of beneficial ownership. At the same time, in particular constellations, published information can trigger considerable risks relevant to fundamental rights.
It is noteworthy that, in the decision, the Verwaltungsgericht relied on fundamental rights under the Grundgesetz (GG, German Basic Law). The decision discussed did not additionally refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, although the scope of application of Art. 51 Abs. 1 GRCh (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) may be affected in connection with the implementation of requirements under EU law.
For companies, investors and wealthy private individuals, the scope of register access and restriction can be of considerable importance. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises clients on issues at the interface of transparency obligations, administrative proceedings and the protection of fundamental rights. In the event of legal questions concerning administrative decisions and register access, legal advice in public law from MTR Legal may be considered.
