VfGH – E2189/2025

26 January 2026

Xz:

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Case_Number_Name=E2189/2025
|ECLI=ECLI:AT:VFGH:2025:E2189.2025

|Original_Source_Name_1=RIS
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Entscheidungsart=Undefined&Sammlungsnummer=&Index=&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=True&GZ=&VonDatum=&BisDatum=&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=EinerWoche&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=DSGVO&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=7484320a-562e-46fc-8650-790a0a0b1517&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20251210_25E02189_00
|Original_Source_Language_1=German
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=

|Date_Decided=10.12.2025
|Date_Published=21.01.2026
|Year=2025

|GDPR_Article_1=
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=
|GDPR_Article_2=
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=

|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=

|National_Law_Name_1=§1 DSG
|National_Law_Link_1=https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10001597&Artikel=1&Paragraf=1&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht=
|National_Law_Name_2=§10 WiEReG
|National_Law_Link_2=https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20009980&FassungVom=2024-12-22&Artikel=&Paragraf=10&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht=&ShowPrintPreview=True
|National_Law_Name_3=Article 7 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
|National_Law_Link_3=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
|National_Law_Name_4=Article 8 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
|National_Law_Link_4=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
|National_Law_Name_5=
|National_Law_Link_5=
|National_Law_Name_6=
|National_Law_Link_6=

|Initial_Contributor=
|
}}

The Constitutional Court held that a national provision granting access to the beneficial ownership register to anybody with a legitimate interest does not violate the beneficial owner’s right to data protection.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
Austria implemented a [https://www.bmf.gv.at/services/wiereg/wiereg-register.html public register of beneficial owners (WiEReG)] in order to comply with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024L1640 EU anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing rules]. The register contains personal data of natural persons who ultimately own or control legal entities, including sensitive information such as name, date of birth, nationality, residence, and the type and extent of their economic interest. These data are collected from multiple sources, including the company register, association register, foundation and fund register, tax authorities, Statistics Austria, other state registers, and direct reporting by the legal entities themselves. The register originally allowed public access to this information for anyone.

The data subject in this case was a beneficial owner of a private foundation and a member of its foundation board. He requested that the Federal Minister of Finance, acting as the register authority and controller, restrict public access to his data in the register or block it entirely. He argued that making his personal data publicly accessible violated his constitutional rights to privacy and data protection and breached GDPR rules, especially because he was not notified of access and could not control who viewed his data. The Federal Minister of Finance rejected the request on 3 August 2022, stating that the data subject’s status as a beneficial owner was already evident from other public registers, particularly the company register, so there was no reason to block access.

The data subject appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal on 5 October 2022. The court held that the data subject was registered in the beneficial ownership register due to his company holdings, and that his residence was already blocked from view in the register. However, the court also emphasized that this did not change the overall public accessibility of his beneficial ownership status, because the company register is publicly accessible without any requirement of legitimate interest. The data subject then appealed to the Constitutional Court.

During this time, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037 “World Cup” case] on 22 November 2022. The CJEU held that public access to beneficial ownership information for everyone constitutes a serious interference with the data subject’s privacy rights and is disproportionate. It stated that access should be limited to persons with a legitimate interest, such as journalists, NGOs, financial institutions, or authorities. Following this decision, Austria amended [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037 §10 WiEReG], introducing a legitimate interest requirement for access.

On 5 December 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled that the earlier version of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037 §10 WiEReG] was unconstitutional because it violated privacy rights, and therefore annulled the earlier Federal Administrative Court decision that had relied on that provision. The case was sent back for reconsideration under the new legal framework.

In the second administrative process, the Federal Administrative Court again dismissed the data subject’s request. The data subject argued that the legitimate interest requirement remained too broad and could still allow almost anyone (including journalists and NGOs) to access the register, thus undermining his privacy. The data subject also cited risks of personal harm, claiming that industrialists and their families had been targets of kidnappings and therefore his situation justified access restriction.

The data subject appealed again to the Constitutional Court, asserting violations of fundamental rights and requesting annulment of the administrative court’s decision, while also seeking a preliminary ruling from the CJEU.

=== Holding ===
The Austrian Constitutional Court held that the earlier version of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037 §10 WiEReG,] which granted unrestricted public access to the register of beneficial owners, violated the constitutional right to privacy and data protection under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10001597&Artikel=1&Paragraf=1&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht= §1 DSG] and [https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/8-protection-personal-data Article 8 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] because it allowed the disclosure of sensitive personal data without a proportionate justification. The Court therefore declared this version unconstitutional.

However, the Court also found that the amended version of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037 §10 WiEReG], which limits access to those who can demonstrate a legitimate interest, is constitutional because it better balances transparency objectives with the data protection right and aligns with the requirements of the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037 CJEU’s World Cup ruling.] Consequently, the data subject’s request to block access to his data was rejected, as the revised legal framework permits access only under the legitimate-interest requirement and does not unlawfully interfere with fundamental rights, and in particular with the right regarding the protection of personal data.

== Comment ==
”Share your comments here!”

== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.

<pre>
Ruling

I. The appellant’s rights have not been violated by the contested decision, neither in any constitutionally guaranteed right nor due to the application of an unlawful general norm.

II. The appeal is dismissed and referred to the Administrative Court for a decision on whether the appellant’s rights have been violated by the contested decision in any other respect.

Grounds for the Decision

I. Facts, Appeal, and Preliminary Proceedings

1. According to the Register of Beneficial Owners of Companies, Other Legal Entities, and Trusts (hereinafter: Beneficial Owners Register), the appellant is a direct or indirect beneficial owner of an internationally operating group of companies headquartered in Vienna. The group of companies distributes passive safety products for the automotive industry and has locations in various countries. A private foundation is at the head of this group of companies. The appellant is a member of the board of directors of the aforementioned private foundation.

2. By application dated August 12, 2021, the appellant requested the Federal Minister of Finance, acting as the registration authority, to restrict access to the Beneficial Ownership Register based on overriding legitimate interests within the meaning of Section 10a of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG).

3. By decision dated August 3, 2022, the Federal Minister of Finance rejected this application. He reasoned, in summary, that the appellant’s status as a beneficial owner was also evident from other public registers, specifically the Commercial Register. The application was therefore to be dismissed.

4. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Minister of Finance as unfounded by ruling dated October 5, 2022. In its reasoning, the Federal Administrative Court stated, in summary, that the appellant was registered in the Beneficial Ownership Register due to certain company shareholdings. His residence cannot be viewed in the register by either authorities or obligated companies (§9 WiEReG) because a disclosure restriction exists under the Registration Act. According to §10a para. 2, last sentence, of the WiEReG, the beneficial owner’s legitimate interests are already absent if the data in question can also be obtained from other public registers. It cannot be seriously doubted that this includes the commercial register. According to §9 para. 1 of the Austrian Commercial Code (UGB), anyone may inspect the main register and the deed collection of the commercial register. No legal or public interest is required for this. The appellant’s argument that his position as founder of a private foundation is evident not from the commercial register but only from the deed collection is irrelevant, because the appellant is already registered as a member of the foundation’s board of directors in the main register of the commercial register. Furthermore, there is no reason to treat the deed collection differently from the commercial register.

According to §9 para. 1 of the Austrian Commercial Code (UGB), anyone may inspect the main register and the deed collection of the commercial register. 5. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the decision of 5 October 2022, alleging a violation of specifically identified constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as rights due to the application of an unlawful general provision, namely Sections 7, 8, 10, and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), and requesting that the contested decision be set aside with costs.

6. In its judgment of 22 November 2022, Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al., the Court of Justice of the European Union declared Article 30(5), first subparagraph, point (c), as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, invalid. The Court of Justice of the European Union essentially based its decision on the grounds that the public right of access to the register constitutes a serious interference with the data subjects’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) and their right to the protection of their personal data under Article 8 CFR. This interference was deemed unnecessary and disproportionate in light of the objective of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. In essence, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated the following: The existence of difficulties in precisely defining the cases and conditions under which the public may have access to information on beneficial owners does not justify the EU legislature providing for access to this information for all members of the public. While public access to information on beneficial owners allows for greater scrutiny of this information by civil society, it should be noted that both the press and civil society organisations involved in the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing have a legitimate interest in accessing information on beneficial owners. The same applies to persons who wish to ascertain the identity of the beneficial owners of a company or other legal person because they might conduct business with that person, or to financial institutions and authorities cooperating in the fight against money laundering or terrorist financing.6. In its judgment of 22 November 2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al., the Court of Justice of the European Union declared Article 30(5), first subparagraph, point (c), as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, invalid. The Court of Justice of the European Union essentially reasoned that the public right of access to the register constituted a serious interference with the data subjects’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and their right to the protection of their personal data under Article 8 of the Charter. This interference was unnecessary and disproportionate in view of the objective of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union essentially stated the following: The existence of difficulties in precisely defining the cases and conditions under which the public may have access to information on beneficial owners does not justify the EU legislature providing for access to this information for all members of the public. While public access to information on beneficial owners allows for greater control of this information by civil society, it should be noted that both the press and civil society organizations involved in the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing have a legitimate interest in accessing information on beneficial owners. The same applies to individuals who wish to ascertain the identity of the beneficial owners of a company or other legal entity because they might conduct business with it, or to financial institutions and authorities cooperating in the fight against money laundering or terrorist financing.

Financial institutions and authorities involved in combating money laundering or terrorist financing offenses.

… 7. The Constitutional Court then decided, on the occasion of the complainant’s appeal against the decision of 5 October 2022, by decision of 16 June 2023, E3129/2022, to examine ex officio the constitutionality of Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 62/2019 and Section 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 62/2018. The Constitutional Court had no objections to Section 7 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 25/2021 and Section 8 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 136/2017. The Constitutional Court then decided, on the basis of the complainant’s appeal against the decision of October 5, 2022, by order of June 16, 2023, E3129/2022, to examine ex officio the constitutionality of Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 62 of 2019, and Section 10a of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 62 of 2018. The Constitutional Court had no objections to Section 7 of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 25 of 2021, and Section 8 of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 136 of 2017.

… 8. With Federal Law BGBl I 97/2023 – even before the Constitutional Court’s decision in the legislative review proceedings under file number G265/2023 concerning Sections 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) – the legislature amended Section 10 of the WiEReG and limited the right of access contained therein – as in the original version – to the existence of a legitimate interest on the part of the applicant (Section 10, paragraph 2, WiEReG).

] 9. In its ruling of December 5, 2023, G265/2023, the Constitutional Court held that the public right of access to the register for everyone pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 62/2019 (which transposed Article 30(5), subparagraph 1(c) of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive into national law) violated Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was therefore unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court further held in its ruling that Section 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 62/2018 was not unconstitutional. In its ruling of December 5, 2023, G265/2023, the Constitutional Court held that the public right of access to the register for everyone pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 62 of 2019 (which transposed Article 30(5), subparagraph 1(c) of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive into national law) violated Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was therefore unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court further held in its ruling that Section 10a of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 62 of 2018, was not unconstitutional.

10. Subsequently, in its decision of December 6, 2023, E3129/2022, the Constitutional Court overturned the decision of the Federal Administrative Court of October 5, 2022, due to the violation of the complainant’s rights as a result of the application of an unconstitutional legal provision.

11. In the second round of proceedings, the Federal Administrative Court, in a letter dated January 17, 2025, gave the complainant and the Federal Minister of Finance, as the respondent authority, the opportunity to comment on the aforementioned decisions and the subsequently amended legal situation.

11.1. In his statement, the Federal Minister of Finance explained that the conditions for restricting access to the information were not met. Specifically, the complainant had no legitimate interests because his data, namely his first and last name, date of birth, and place of residence, were already available in public registers. Furthermore, the complainant’s economic ownership structure is accessible and publicly viewable on the internet at numerous locations specifically identified by the respondent authority.

11.2. In his statement, the complainant argued that he considered it problematic that a legitimate interest is already automatically assumed by law for members of journalistic professions, academics, and civil society organizations involved in preventing money laundering, terrorist financing, or the circumvention of sanctions under the Austrian Sanctions Act (Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act, as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023). Moreover, the requirement that a legitimate interest exists when the applicant intends to enter into a business relationship with a legal entity is too vague and effectively allows anyone to access the register. In his statement, the complainant argued that he considered it problematic that a legitimate interest was already automatically assumed by law for members of journalistic professions, academics, and civil society organizations involved in preventing money laundering, terrorist financing, or the circumvention of sanctions under the Austrian Penal Code (Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act, as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97 of 2023). Furthermore, he argued that the provision that a legitimate interest exists when an applicant intends to enter into a business relationship with a legal entity was too vague and effectively allowed anyone to access the register.

[The sentence is incomplete in the original text.] 12. Prior to the decision of the Federal Administrative Court in the second instance, the Constitutional Court, by decision of 11 March 2025, E2888/2024, in connection with an appeal concerning a journalist’s request for information, initiated a review of the law ex officio with regard to Sections 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023 and ultimately ruled by decision of 7 October 2025, G62/2025, that Section 10(1)(1) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023 was unconstitutional. 12. Prior to the Federal Administrative Court’s decision in the second instance, the Constitutional Court, in a decision dated March 11, 2025, E2888/2024, initiated a review of the constitutionality of Sections 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 97 of 2023, ex officio, in connection with an appeal concerning a journalist’s request for information. The Constitutional Court ultimately ruled in its decision of October 7, 2025, G62/2025, that Section 10(1)(1) of the WiEReG, as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 97 of 2023, was unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court essentially justified its decision by stating that access to data not covered by Section 10 Paragraph 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023 – for example, historical data (Section 9 Paragraph 3 WiEReG), information on whether the beneficial owners were identified and verified by a professional representative (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7a WiEReG), information on whether, after exhausting all possibilities, the beneficial owners could not be identified and verified (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7c WiEReG), or the automatically generated presentation of all known levels of ownership relevant for determining the beneficial owner (Section 9 Paragraph 5 Item 1 WiEReG) – can be of public interest and contribute to the formation of public opinion. The Constitutional Court found that the legislature, in Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), failed to establish a proportionate balance of interests between the confidentiality interests of legal entities and their beneficial owners (Section 1 of the Data Protection Act in conjunction with Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the one hand, and the right to information of the group of persons protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the other. The Constitutional Court essentially based its decision on the fact that access to data not covered by Section 10 Paragraph 1 of the WiEReG as amended by the Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023 – for example, historical data (Section 9 Paragraph 3 WiEReG), information on whether the beneficial owners were identified and verified by a professional representative (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7a WiEReG), information on whether the beneficial owners could not be identified and verified after exhausting all possibilities (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7c WiEReG), or the automatically generated presentation of all known levels of ownership relevant for determining the beneficial owner (Section 9 Paragraph 5) – was also insufficient. The Constitutional Court found that Section 10(1)(1) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) – is of public interest and can contribute to public opinion formation. The Court determined that the legislature, in Section 10(1)(1) of the WiEReG, failed to strike a proportionate balance between the confidentiality interests of legal entities and their beneficial owners (Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act in conjunction with Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the one hand, and the right to information of the group of persons protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the other.

Since the provision expired on September 30, 2025, pursuant to Federal Law Gazette I 151/2024, the Constitutional Court limited itself to finding its unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court also found that the remaining provisions of Section 10 of the WiEReG, as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023, and Section 10a of the WiEReG, as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023, were not unconstitutional. Since the provision expired on September 30, 2025, pursuant to Federal Law Gazette Part One, 151 of 2024, the Constitutional Court had to limit itself to determining its unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court found, among other things, that the remaining provisions of Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023, and Section 10a of the WiEReG, as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023, were not unconstitutional.

13. In the now contested ruling, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal in the second instance (after the Constitutional Court’s ruling of December 6, 2023, E3129/2022, overturned the ruling of October 5, 2022). The appellant argued that numerous kidnappings of industrialists and/or their family members had taken place in Austria. These kidnappings/attempted kidnappings of industrialists, which occurred years ago and had no connection whatsoever to the appellant, could not demonstrate that the appellant was likely to become a victim of a crime. Nor did the fact that the appellant’s wife had previously been an advisor to former Federal Chancellors show how access to the appellant’s data from the register of beneficial owners would justify an increased risk.

14. The appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Federal Administrative Court based on Article 144 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law. The appellant alleges a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as rights due to the application of unlawful general provisions, namely Section 2(3)(a) to (c)(a), Section 5(1)(1) and (3), Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG). The appellant requests that the contested decision be set aside with costs and proposes the initiation of a preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. The appellant states the following in his appeal, in part:

“4.4 Interference with these fundamental rights

4.4.1 The contested decision infringes the appellant’s fundamental right to data protection under Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) and the fundamental right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for the following reasons:

4.4.2 The appellant is identified by name in the extracts from the Register of Beneficial Owners […] with his full legal name ***** (which he himself has not used in this form in legal and business transactions for years) as well as with the short form he actually uses, Mag. ****. In connection with this identification, his date of birth, citizenship, full residential address, and place of birth are disclosed […]). Furthermore, the extract from the Register of Beneficial Owners (WiEReG) contains a classification of the appellant as a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect beneficial owner’. This classification, in particular of the ‘indirect’ beneficial ownership of a specific […]” The legal entity […] does not appear in any other (public or non-public) register.

4.4.3 Making all this personal data and information available to third parties, namely the public worldwide, regardless of the subsequent use of the transmitted information, constitutes—in addition to the collection, accumulation, (automated) generation (i.e., modification through processing), storage, and trading by the registration authority—an infringement of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR and Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act (see also ECJ 22 November 2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al.; in particular VfSlg 19.892/2014). The fundamental rights enshrined in Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the Data Protection Act (see also ECJ 22.11.2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al.; in particular VfSlg 19.892/2014).

4.4.4 The existence of a legitimate interest within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR is indeed excluded under Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the aforementioned legislation if data is not subject to a confidentiality claim due to its general availability or because it cannot be traced back to the data subject.

4.4.5 However, the data described, which is collected and processed in the register of beneficial owners and then appears in the extract from the register pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), is undoubtedly traceable back to the persons registered in the register.

4.4.6 This data is certainly not generally available. This applies in particular to the classification of the data subjects as ‘beneficial owners’ within the meaning of Section 2 of the WiEReG and the more detailed description of the ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ ‘beneficial ownership’ in its ‘nature’ and ‘extent’. These classifications do not appear in any other (public or non-public) register.

4.4.7 Furthermore, certain entities covered by the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), such as private foundations, have particular significance due to their purpose of providing for the beneficiaries. Assets are permanently dedicated by the founder to their own benefit or to the support of persons close to them, whether they are close relatives or belong to the founder’s immediate social circle. According to the founder’s wishes, beneficiaries under Austrian law can also be named only in a supplementary deed, meaning their identity cannot be ascertained from the public commercial register. The (including automated) data matching under Sections 7 and 8 of the WiEReG thus identifies beneficiaries as beneficial owners even if they cannot be identified from other public registers.

4.4.8 The status of beneficiary of a private foundation, and therefore as beneficial owner within the meaning of Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the WiEReG, is not generally available. The beneficiaries of a private foundation can be determined in the foundation’s supplementary deed (even if described abstractly without naming names) (see Section 9 of the Private Foundations Act (PSG)). According to Section 10 Paragraph 2 of the PSG, the supplementary deed does not need to be submitted to the commercial register; it is therefore not public. This information is made publicly available in the extract from the register pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG). 4.4.8 The status as a beneficiary of a private foundation, and thus as a beneficial owner within the meaning of Section 2 Item 3 of the WiEReG, is not generally available. The beneficiaries of a private foundation can be determined in the foundation’s supplementary deed (even if described abstractly without naming names) (see Section 9 of the PSG). According to Section 10 Paragraph 2 of the PSG, the supplementary deed does not need to be submitted to the commercial register; it is therefore not public. This information is made publicly available in the extract from the register pursuant to Section 10 of the WiEReG.

The status as a beneficiary of a private foundation, and thus as a beneficial owner within the meaning of Section 2 Item 3 of the WiEReG, is not generally available. 4.4.9 However, the naming and identification of a natural person as a beneficiary of a private foundation, including their full name, often indicates a particularly close relationship between the beneficiary and the founder, which can lead to the disclosure of the individual’s genetic, but also other social or familial, identity. This is especially true in situations where the beneficiary’s surname would not reveal their familial or social identity in relation to the founder. Consider, for example, children born out of wedlock who are named as beneficiaries alongside children born within marriage, or heterosexual or homosexual partners, or relatives who have intentionally changed their family name through marriage or other means. In such cases, the personal data in question is even capable of revealing information about the highly personal and intimate aspects of the individual’s life and enabling the creation of social profiles and connections. Finally, political opinions or ideological convictions can also be reflected in beneficiary gifts, which likewise constitute sensitive data and are thus made accessible to the public.

Finally, gifts to beneficiaries can also reveal political opinions or ideological convictions, which likewise constitute sensitive data and are thus made accessible to the public. 4.4.10 The dataset containing personal data published in the Register of Beneficial Owners even differs from other public registers or databases (in particular the Central Population Register, Commercial Register, Register of Associations) and—especially with the creation of the classification as an ‘indirect beneficial owner’ including its nature and scope—identifies original data of the data subjects. The Register of Beneficial Owners thus creates a data category of the beneficial identity of the data subjects that cannot be obtained from other (public or non-public) sources.

4.4.11 Interested parties simply cannot obtain comparable information regarding the identity of the data subjects without an extract from the Register of Beneficial Owners pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG).

4.4.12 Furthermore, the data that is collected and processed in the Register of Beneficial Owners and subsequently appears in the extract from the Register pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) are, by their very nature, capable of revealing the (professional) social and economic identity of the data subjects.

4.4.13 Extracts from the register of beneficial owners provide interested parties with detailed information on the professional and social environment of a ‘direct’ or, in particular, ‘indirect’ beneficial owner when querying several group companies. This includes information on any co-owners, as well as members of the governing bodies of the respective legal entities. Knowledge of identified ‘indirect’ ownership informs interested parties at which companies and events an ‘indirect’ owner is likely to be found – including public events such as openings or speeches, but also events with limited public access, such as general meetings or annual general meetings. Based on the information on ‘indirect’ ownership, in particular, a social profile (of the immediate environment as well as the professional network) and thus also a certain movement profile can be created, which cannot be obtained in this form and, above all, with this ease from any other source – public or private.

… 4.4.14 The information provided on the identity of the beneficial owner and the nature and extent of their economic interest in companies or other legal persons also enables interested parties to create, based on the information provided, a more or less comprehensive profile including certain personal identifying data, the financial situation of the person concerned, and the economic sectors, countries, and specific companies in which they have invested (see also ECJ 22.11.2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al.). C601/20, WM et al.).

4.4.15 In addition, the competent authority, the Federal Minister of Finance, engages in data trading by charging a fee of EUR 4 for each public disclosure (Section 1(1)(4) of the WiEReG-NutzungssentetteV).

4.4.16 Finally, once personal data has been made available, it can not only be accessed but also stored and disseminated. For data subjects, it is practically impossible to effectively defend themselves against misuse of subsequent processing (see also ECJ 22 November 2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al.). For data subjects, it is practically impossible to effectively defend themselves against misuse of subsequent processing (see also ECJ 22.11.2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al.).

4.4.17 Furthermore, the authority does not take any precautions to ensure that the data is stored and accessed only within the territory of the Union; nor does it take any precautions to ensure the irrevocable deletion of data held by third parties after the retention period has expired.

4.4.18 The data collected and processed in the register of beneficial owners, and subsequently appearing in the extract from the register pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), therefore undoubtedly constitute data within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG), in which both the complainant specifically and any other data subject in general have a legitimate interest. This personal data is obviously no longer confidential, since, pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), a public extract from the register bearing an official signature of the registration authority can be requested electronically. Consequently, the access provided for in Section 10 WiEReG via the beneficial owners clearly constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights under Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which must comply with constitutional and fundamental rights criteria.

4.5 On the incompatibility of Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 1 WiEReG with EU law, the Austrian Constitution, and fundamental rights – Collection and storage of personal data

4.5.1 The constitutional and EU law assessment of Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 1 (reporting of data by the legal entities) must be carried out taking into account the intensity of the infringement on particularly sensitive personal data caused by this provision. It is particularly important to take into account that this data – especially in connection with sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 – is not only processed automatically, structured and stored for the long term, but is also made accessible to third parties upon request.

4.5.2 Pursuant to Section 5, legal entities must report the data mentioned above concerning the complainant to Statistics Austria, the data processor for the registration authority. The complainant is identified in the extracts from the Register of Beneficial Owners […] by his full legal name ***** (which he himself has not used in this form in legal and business transactions for years) as well as by the short form ***** that he actually uses. In connection with this identification, his date of birth, citizenship, full residential address, and place of birth are disclosed […]. Furthermore, the extract from the Register of Beneficial Owners (WiEReG) includes a classification of the complainant as a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect beneficial owner’. The depth and breadth of the data collected and stored concerning the complainant, as provided for by the legislator, goes far beyond what would be necessary and proportionate to achieve the purpose intended under EU law – combating money laundering and terrorist financing. This constitutes not only an infringement of the complainant’s fundamental right to data protection (Section 1 of the Data Protection Act), but also a violation of his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as a violation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.5.3 The EU legal basis for the national implementation of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) is found in Article 30(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive), which states: “Member States shall require that the information held in the central register pursuant to paragraph 3 be adequate, accurate and up-to-date.” Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 states that Member States must collect “at least the name, month and year of birth, country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner, as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest.” However, neither of these directives contains an exhaustive list of the personal data to be collected.

“` 4.5.4 In its judgment of 22 November 2022 (Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM and Sovim SA), the CJEU unequivocally clarified that the collection and disclosure of personal data is only permissible insofar as such data is necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to the purpose of the Directive, namely the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. The CJEU expressly stated in paragraph 51 of the judgment that only ‘appropriate’ data may be collected and stored, ‘which excludes, in particular, data that does not have a reasonable connection to the objectives of this Directive.’ In its judgment of 22 November 2022 (Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM and Sovim SA), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found the vague wording in Article 30(5)(c) of Directive 2018/843, which requires that ‘at least’ certain data be made available to the public, to be contrary to EU law. The CJEU reasoned that the openness of the provision violates the EU law requirement of clear, precise, and predictable legal bases for infringements of fundamental rights. National implementation that goes beyond the minimum required by EU law therefore requires particularly stringent constitutional justification, especially in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Articles 7 and 8) and the principle of proportionality (see CJEU judgment of 22 November 2022, Case C-37/20, paragraph 82 […]).

… 4.5.5 The recording of the place of birth and the exact residential address is a peculiarity of Austrian law within the European context. A comparison with the regulations in other Member States shows that, in implementing the fundamental rights-violating European requirements, the Austrian legislature has legalized a particularly far-reaching and excessive intrusion compared to other EU member states.

– In Germany (§19 GwG), only the place of residence is recorded, not the full residential address;

– in Sweden and Liechtenstein, only the country of residence is recorded;

– Luxembourg law, which was the subject of the aforementioned ECJ proceedings, allows the choice of a professional address;

– in Ireland, the residential address is recorded but not published.

4.5.6 The Austrian legislature has thus deliberately opted for more comprehensive data collection, even though EU law does not require or permit this. The explanatory notes to the government bill (Explanatory Report 1660, Annex to the National Council Proceedings, 25th Legislative Period) argue that certain additional information is necessary for the unambiguous identification of the beneficial owner. However, according to general administrative practice and international custom, the combination of name and date of birth is already sufficient to unambiguously identify a natural person. Therefore, collecting the place of birth and full residential address is not objectively justified. 4.5.6 The Austrian legislature has thus deliberately opted for more comprehensive data collection, even though EU law does not require, nor may it require, this. The explanatory notes to the government bill (Explanatory Report 1660, Annex to the National Council Proceedings, 25th Legislative Period) argue that certain additional information is necessary for the unambiguous identification of the beneficial owner. However, according to general administrative practice and international custom, the combination of name and date of birth is already sufficient to unambiguously identify a natural person. Therefore, collecting the place of birth and full residential address is not objectively justified.

4.5.7 Preventing the use of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing is a legitimate objective of high public interest. However, there is a fundamental difference between the legitimacy of the objective and the justification of a specific infringement of fundamental rights by that objective.

4.5.8 The collection and storage of personal data can only be considered appropriate and necessary within the meaning of the principle of proportionality if—as expressly required by the CJEU in its judgment of 22 November 2022 (Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20)—it is carried out in a The data collection process lacks a factual and functional connection to the objectives of combating money laundering and preventing terrorist financing. While recording names, dates of birth, and, where applicable, nationalities for identifying beneficial owners may generally seem expedient, the additional collection of place of birth and, in particular, the full residential address lacks a comprehensible objective justification. This sensitive information provides no added value for detecting or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing, but significantly increases the risk that affected individuals – such as the complainant – will become victims of targeted investigations, identity theft, or other criminal offenses. This is all the more serious given that Section 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) itself provides for the possibility of restricting access to the register in cases of concrete threats – for example, in the event of threats of criminal activity. The question therefore arises as to why the recording and storage of the full residential address should be mandatory for all beneficial owners when this very fact invites potential perpetrators to conduct targeted investigations. The risk for those affected is unnecessarily increased by disclosing their private address and place of birth. In contrast, identification through alternative, less intrusive characteristics – such as an official identification number – would be equally effective, but more respectful of fundamental rights and already common practice in several other Member States. The Austrian solution is therefore not only excessive, but also clearly unlawful with regard to the constitutionally mandated data minimization (§1 DSG; Art. 5 para. 1 lit. c GDPR) and proportionality requirements.

4.5.9 The balancing of the severity of the infringement of fundamental rights against its benefit to achieving the objective thus reveals a clear imbalance. The collection and storage of the place of birth and the full residential address offer no additional investigative leads in the context of combating money laundering; at the same time, however, this data enables the creation of a precise and potentially abuse-prone personal profile that allows inferences to be drawn about social, familial, and, where applicable, ideological connections. This imbalance between benefit and intensity of intrusion is all the more serious because the individuals concerned – including the complainant – do not operate in a state-affiliated environment, but exclusively in the private sphere. activate.

[…]

4.5.11 From a constitutional perspective, it must therefore be noted that Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 1 in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), with its current content, not only constitutes a significant infringement of the legal positions of natural persons protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), and Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG), but that this infringement is manifestly disproportionate, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to the intended purpose of the regulation. The Austrian legislature has failed to conduct a differentiated balancing of interests, based on the principle of proportionality, between the public interest in transparency and the personal rights of those affected. 4.5.11 From a constitutional perspective, it must therefore be noted that Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 1 in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), with its current content, not only constitutes a significant infringement of the rights of natural persons protected by Article 8 of the ECHR, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), and Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG), but that this infringement is also clearly disproportionate, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to the intended purpose of the regulation. The issue is not that the interference constitutes a legally protected position of natural persons under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (GRC) and Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), but rather that this interference is manifestly disproportionate, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to the intended purpose of the regulation. The Austrian legislature failed to conduct a differentiated balancing of the public interest in transparency and the personal rights of those affected, based on the principle of proportionality.

[…]

4.5.13 For this reason, it is requested that the Constitutional Court subject Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 1 in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) – in particular with regard to the obligation stipulated therein to collect, store, and publish extracts of the place of birth and full residential address of beneficial owners – to a review of its constitutionality and its compatibility with EU law. […]

4.6 On the incompatibility with EU law, the Constitution, and fundamental rights of the blanket registration of the founder as beneficial owner pursuant to Section 2 Item 3 Letter a Subletter a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)

4.6.1 The mandatory registration, i.e., the legally mandated attribution of (co-)founders of private foundations such as the complainant, with regard to the actual relationships of influence pursuant to Section 2 Item 3 Letter a Subletter a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), is incompatible with EU law and EU law. The appellant, the founder of the FIPO Private Foundation, is violated in his constitutionally and EU-law-protected rights by this automatic classification.

[…]

4.7 On the incompatibility with EU law, the constitution, and fundamental rights of the blanket classification of the members of the foundation’s board of directors as beneficial owners pursuant to Section 2(3)(a)(cc) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)

4.7.1 In the contested ruling (p. 25), the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) assumes that the appellant, as a member of the board of directors of a private foundation, is to be classified as a beneficial owner ex lege pursuant to Section 2(3)(a)(cc) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG). This assumption is based on a literal application of the aforementioned provision, without conducting a constitutional and EU-law review of the associated legal consequences. However, such an examination is warranted because the classification of all foundation board members as beneficial owners – regardless of their actual ability to exert influence or control – is unconstitutional and violates EU law, and the complainant’s constitutionally and EU-law-guaranteed rights are infringed by this automatic classification. 4.7.1 In the contested ruling (Session 25), the Federal Administrative Court assumes that the complainant, as a member of the board of a private foundation, qualifies as a beneficial owner by operation of law pursuant to Section 2(3)(a)(cc) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG). This assumption is based on a literal application of the aforementioned provision, without conducting a constitutional and EU-law review of the associated legal consequences. However, such an examination is warranted because the classification of all foundation board members as beneficial owners—regardless of their actual ability to exert influence or control—is unconstitutional and violates EU law, and the complainant’s constitutionally and EU-law-guaranteed rights are infringed by this automatic classification.

However, the inclusion of all foundation board members as beneficial owners—regardless of their actual ability to influence or control—is unconstitutional and violates EU law. […]

4.7.11 Against this background, it is requested that the constitutionality of Section 2, Paragraph 3, Letter 1, Subparagraph cc of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) – in particular with regard to the mandatory and blanket reporting of former members of the foundation’s board of directors – be subjected to a thorough review of the legal framework. […]

4.8 On the incompatibility with EU law, the Austrian Constitution, and fundamental rights of the reporting obligation of the group of beneficiaries as beneficial owners pursuant to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Letter 3 in conjunction with Section 2, Paragraph 3, Letter 1, Subparagraph bb of the WiEReG

4.8.1 The obligation introduced by the WiEReG amendment to report the so-called group of beneficiaries, including future beneficiaries, of the private foundation in Section 5, Paragraph 1, Letter 3 in conjunction with Section 2, Paragraph 3, Letter 1, Subparagraph bb of the WiEReG […] constitutes a constitutional infringement. and interference under EU law with the rights of potential but not yet actual beneficiaries, as well as with regard to the private autonomy of the founder in exercising his right to determine the beneficiaries of the FIPO Private Foundation. The now legally mandated inclusion in the register of beneficial owners of those persons whose beneficiary status has not yet materialized and whose legal relationship to the foundation is neither current nor concrete contradicts both the legal principles of private foundation law and the personal rights protected by the GDPR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the ECHR. 4.8.1 The obligation introduced by the amendment to the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) to report the so-called circle of beneficiaries, including future beneficiaries, of the private foundation in Section 5(1)(3) in conjunction with Section 2(3)(a)(bb) WiEReG […] constitutes an inadmissible interference under constitutional and EU law with the rights of potential but not yet actual beneficiaries, as well as with regard to the founder’s private autonomy in exercising their right to determine the beneficiaries of the FIPO private foundation. The now legally mandated inclusion in the register of beneficial owners of those persons whose beneficiary status has not yet materialized and whose legal relationship to the foundation is neither current nor concrete contradicts both the fundamental legal principles of private foundation law and the personal rights protected by the GDPR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the ECHR.

[…]

4.8.23 Against this background, it is therefore requested that the Constitutional Court subject the legal provision of Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 3 in conjunction with Section 2 Item 3 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) to a constitutional review, examine its compatibility with constitutional and EU law requirements, and declare it unconstitutional in its current form. […]4.8.23 Against this background, it is therefore requested that the Constitutional Court subject the legal provision of Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 3 in conjunction with Section 2 Item 3 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) to a constitutional review, examine its compatibility with constitutional and EU law requirements, and declare it unconstitutional in its current form. […]

4.10 On the Violation of EU, Constitutional, and Fundamental Rights of Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)

4.10.1 The access provision pursuant to Section 10 of the WiEReG violates the complainant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to data protection as well as other rights protected by EU and fundamental rights. The legislature failed to define the group of persons entitled to access the register in a proportionate manner (see point 4.11) and with sufficient precision with regard to Section 10a of the WiEReG, and to limit access to those cases in which there is a legitimate and objectively justified interest in accessing the register for the purpose of ‘preventing the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing’. The current provision de facto allows an indefinite number of persons—including those whose activities have no connection whatsoever to money laundering prevention—to access the complainant’s particularly sensitive register data.

[…]

4.10.32 Against this background, it is therefore requested that the Constitutional Court subject Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) to a review of its constitutionality, examine its compatibility with constitutional and EU law requirements, and declare it unconstitutional in its current form. […]

4.11 On the incompatibility of Section 10a of the WiEReG with EU law, the Austrian Constitution, and fundamental rights

4.11.1 The current form of Section 10a of the WiEReG violates the complainant’s constitutionally and EU-law-guaranteed rights in several respects, in particular his right to data protection pursuant to Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG), Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The provision fails to meet the requirement, derived from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), that any interference with personal data must be based on a sufficiently specific legal basis and serve a legitimate aim in the public interest. It also fails to meet the more far-reaching requirements of the CFR, according to which the processing of sensitive personal data—such as that stored in the register of beneficial owners—is only permissible if it is genuinely necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to the purpose pursued. The interference with the right to data protection through the disclosure of sensitive register data to third parties is fundamentally serious, as it not only reveals economic relationships but can also allow inferences to be drawn about financial circumstances, family structures, and private life.

[…]

4.11.15 For this reason, it is requested that the Constitutional Court (VfGH) subject Section 10a of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) to a comprehensive review, examine the compatibility of the provision with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Austrian Constitution and EU law, and declare the regulation in its current form unconstitutional. The legislator is to be instructed to create a proportionate new regulation corresponding to the intervention weight of Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), which meets the requirements of constitutional and EU law — in particular through a risk-adequate, objectively verifiable and graduated protection mechanism, clearly defined legal criteria, the involvement of an independent and impartial decision-making body and a mandatory case-by-case review — in order to effectively and sustainably guarantee the fundamental rights of beneficial owners. […]

4.12 Further Violations of EU, Constitutional, and Fundamental Rights in Sections 10 and 10a in conjunction with Sections 7 and 8 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)

4.12.1 As already explained, the WiEReG provides for a cumulation of data collections that was not intended by the EU legislature – and is therefore excessive: According to Sections 7 and 8 of the WiEReG, the registration authority obtains data for the creation of the register of beneficial owners from numerous sources, including:

– the commercial register,

– the register of associations,

– the register of foundations and funds,

– the population register,

– Statistics Austria within the framework of Section 25 of the Federal Statistics Act collected data,

– the supplementary register for affected persons,

– from other registers established under state laws,

– from data collected by the tax authorities, and

– based on legally mandated reporting by subject legal entities themselves (§5 WiEReG).

4.12.2 As already explained […], some of this data is subject to special confidentiality obligations, such as tax secrecy and statistical confidentiality.

4.12.3 Although not required by EU law, the Austrian legislature, in the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) (in particular Sections 7, 8, 10, and 10a WiEReG), stipulates that data concerning natural persons from numerous state databases (including data that must be kept secret) are collected and processed, and that any conclusions drawn from this data are made publicly available and a fee is charged for this data.

4.12.4 The GDPR, as directly applicable secondary law of the European Union in Austria, subjects such linking and use of data to special requirements. Sections 7, 8, 10, and 10a WiEReG do not provide for any measures to ensure that the disseminated data of data subjects is, firstly, stored only within the territory of the EU in compliance with the GDPR, and secondly, irrevocably deleted upon expiry of the retention period. On the contrary, irrevocable deletion is not possible given the electronic worldwide dissemination to those with access.

4.12.5 The infringements of fundamental rights stipulated by the WiEReG (Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act) do not meet the requirements of European primary law (in particular Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), nor the requirements of the GDPR, nor the protection standards of the Austrian Data Protection Act 2000 (DSG 2000). In particular, the infringements of fundamental rights lack the necessaryness and proportionality, as well as the appropriateness and absolute necessity (the latter especially within the meaning of Section 1 DSG 2000).

4.12.6 The provisions of Sections 7, 8, 10, and 10a of the WiEReG are therefore also unconstitutional for these reasons.

4.13 Transparency Requires Counter-Transparency – On the Fundamental Rights Necessity of

Notification of Register Access

4.13.1 The disclosure pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) concerns particularly sensitive personal data such as names, dates of birth, nationalities, countries of residence, and the nature and extent of beneficial ownership – i.e., information that allows for extensive personal gain for beneficial owners. However, there is no corresponding notification obligation: Neither the WiEReG nor the registration authority stipulates that the data subject must be informed who accessed the register, when, and for what purpose.

4.13.2 This regulation violates fundamental data protection principles. Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR requires transparent and fair data processing. Article 14(4) and Article 15 of the GDPR establish further information rights for data subjects – including vis-à-vis third parties to whom their data is disclosed. Without a notification option, beneficial owners are deprived of any actual control over the handling of their data. This directly contradicts the concept of informational self-determination as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act. It is particularly serious that data subjects are not informed about a data query even when it could result in concrete disadvantages, security risks, or violations of their fundamental rights.

4.13.3 It is a fundamental principle of any constitutional order that state-organized transparency must not be one-sided. If the state requires data subjects to disclose their financial circumstances, they must, in return, be entitled to a minimum level of transparency regarding the use of this information. Citizens must not be made the object of state or civil society control without being able to exercise control over their own data.

4.13.4 The provisions of Sections 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) are therefore also unconstitutional and contrary to EU law for this reason. They leave a crucial gap in protection by demanding transparency without providing a corresponding level of transparency for the data subjects. A legally enshrined obligation to notify and/or provide information regarding data access would not only be required under the GDPR, but is also constitutionally mandated to ensure a fair and fundamental rights-compliant balance between the public’s right to information and data protection.

A legally enshrined obligation to provide information and/or information regarding data access would not only be necessary in light of the GDPR, but is also constitutionally essential to guarantee a fair and fundamental rights-compliant balance between the public’s right to information and data protection.

… […]

The complainant proposes a judicial review procedure pursuant to Article 140 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) of the following provisions:

– Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraphs a to cc of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 97/2023, – Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraphs a to cc of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 136 of 2017, last amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 97 of 2023,

– Section 5, paragraph 1, items 1 and 3 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 151/2024, – Section 5, paragraph 1, items 1 and 3 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 136 of 2017, last amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 151 of 2024,

– Section 7 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the current version, Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017, last amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 136 of 2017,

by Federal Law Gazette I No. 151/2024,

– Section 8 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the current version, Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017,

– Section 9 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the current version, Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017, last amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 136 of 2017 Last amended

by Federal Law Gazette I No. 151/2024, by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 151 of 2024,

– Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the version currently in force, Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017, last amended – Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the version currently in force, Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 136 of 2017, last amended

by Federal Law Gazette I No. 97/2023 and by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 97 of 2023, and by

– Section 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the version currently in force, Federal Law Gazette I No. 136/2017, last amended – Section 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in the version currently in force, Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 136 of 2017, last amended

to introduce the constitutionality of the Act by Federal Law Gazette I No. 97/2023, in particular in light of the current legal situation. to examine the concerns raised in this complaint. “to initiate proceedings by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 97 of 2023, and to examine them for their constitutionality, in particular in light of the concerns raised in this complaint.”

15. As already stated above, the Constitutional Court ruled in its decision of October 7, 2025, G62/2025, that Section 10(1)(1) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 97 of 2023, was unconstitutional. According to Article 140, paragraph 7 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), the repeal of a law has retroactive effect on the case that triggered it. Therefore, the case that triggered it must be treated as if the provision deemed unconstitutional had already ceased to be part of the legal order at the time the facts underlying the contested decision of the Administrative Court were realized.

The case that triggered the constitutional review proceedings, as defined in Article 140, paragraph 7 of the B-VG (in the narrower sense), is the case that actually initiated the constitutional review proceedings and is therefore equivalent to all those appeals that were already pending before the Constitutional Court at the time of the oral hearing in the constitutional review proceedings (or, if no oral hearing was held at the beginning of the closed-door deliberations, at the time of the oral hearing) (VfSlg 10.616/1985, 11.711/1988).

The case that triggered the constitutional review proceedings, as defined in Article 140, paragraph 7 of the B-VG, is the case that triggered the constitutional review proceedings. The closed-door deliberations in the legislative review proceedings recorded under file number G62/2025 began on September 16, 2025. The complainant filed his complaint, based on Article 144 of the Federal Constitutional Law, with the Constitutional Court via electronic legal communication on July 22, 2025. The present complaint was therefore already pending at the start of the closed-door deliberations. The underlying case is thus equivalent to a preliminary case.

16. The Federal Minister of Finance submitted the administrative files and, represented by the Federal Finance Agency, issued a statement opposing the complaint with further justification.

17. The Federal Administrative Court did not submit any files and did not issue a statement.

II. Legal Situation II. Legal Situation

1. The relevant provisions of the Federal Act on the Establishment of a Register of Beneficial Owners of Companies, Other Legal Entities and Trusts (Beneficial Owners Register Act – WiEReG), Federal Law Gazette I 136/2017, as they were in force at the time of the contested decision (Section 8 of the WiEReG was in its original version; Section 5 Paragraph 1 Items 1 and 3, Section 7 and Section 9 of the WiEReG were in force as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 151/2024; Section 2 Item 3 Letters sublitaa to sublitcc, Section 10 and Section 10a of the WiEReG were in force as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023), read in part as follows (the contested provisions are highlighted): 1. The relevant provisions of the Federal Act on the Establishment of a Register of Beneficial Owners of Companies, Other Legal Entities, and Trusts (Beneficial Ownership Register Act – WiEReG), Federal Law Gazette Part One, 136 of 2017, as they were in force at the time of the contested decision (Section 8 of the WiEReG was in its original version; Section 5 Paragraph 1 Items 1 and 3, Section 7 and Section 9 of the WiEReG were in force as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One 151/2024; Section 2 Item 3 subparagraphs a to cc, Section 10 and Section 10a of the WiEReG were in force as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023), read in part as follows (the contested provisions are highlighted):

“Definition of Beneficial Owner

Section 2. Beneficial owners are all natural persons who ultimately own or control a legal entity; this includes at least the following persons:

1. […]

2. […]

3. In the case of foundations, comparable legal entities, and trust-like legal arrangements pursuant to Section 1(2)(18), the natural persons who hold equivalent or similar functions to those mentioned in point 2; this applies to:

a) private foundations (Section 1(2)(12)):

aa) the founders;

bb) the beneficiaries, the group of persons from whom the beneficiaries are selected based on a separate determination (Section 5 of the Private Foundations Act) (beneficiary group) – if persons from this group receive distributions from the private foundation whose value exceeds €2,000 in a calendar year, they are considered one-time beneficiaries in that calendar year – or in the case of private foundations pursuant to Section 66 of the Insurance Supervision Act 2016, savings bank foundations pursuant to Section 27a of the Savings Banks Act, corporate foundations pursuant to Section 4d(1) of the Income Tax Act 1988, employee support foundations pursuant to Section 4d(2) of the Income Tax Act 1988, and employee and Employee participation foundations pursuant to Section 4d, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1988 Income Tax Act always include the following beneficiaries:

cc) the members of the foundation’s board of directors;

dd) and any other natural person who ultimately controls the private foundation in another way.

b) […]

[…]

Due Diligence Obligations of Legal Entities Regarding Their Beneficial Owners

Section 3. (1) Legal entities shall establish the identity of their beneficial owner and take appropriate measures to verify their identity so that they are satisfied that they know who their beneficial owner is; this includes taking appropriate measures to understand the ownership and control structure. Furthermore, when obligated entities (Section 9(1)) apply due diligence obligations towards customers, they shall provide obligated entities with evidence relating to their beneficial owners, in addition to information about their legal owner.

(2-8) […]

Obligations of Legal and Beneficial Owners

Section 4. Owners and beneficial owners of legal entities (including beneficial owners by virtue of shares and bearer shares, voting rights, participations, or other forms of control) shall provide them with all documents and information necessary for the fulfillment of the due diligence obligations (Section 3).

Reporting of Data by Legal Entities

Section 5. (1) Legal entities must report the following data concerning their beneficial owners to Statistics Austria, acting as the data processor for the registration authority:

1. For direct beneficial owners:

a) Name;

b) If they do not have a residence in Austria, the number and type of official photo ID;

c) Date and place of birth;

d) Nationality;

e) Residence;

If a beneficial owner is deceased, this must be indicated. In this case, the information pursuant to point c must be reported only to the extent possible, and the information pursuant to points b, d, and e is not required.

2. For indirect beneficial owners:

a) The information pursuant to point 1 concerning the indirect beneficial owner;

b) If the ultimate legal entity is a legal entity pursuant to Section 1, the share number and the share of shares, voting rights, or participation of the beneficial owner in the ultimate legal entity;

(c) If the ultimate legal entity is a legal entity comparable to one under Section 1 and domiciled in another Member State or a third country, the name and registered office of the legal entity, its legal form, the identifiers corresponding to the company registration number and the company register, and the share of shares, voting rights, or the beneficial owner’s participation in the ultimate legal entity must be reported.

Indirect beneficial owners do not need to be reported if their beneficial ownership is established by a ultimate legal entity as defined in Section 2, paragraphs 2 or 3, which is itself registered as a legal entity, unless the automated transfer of beneficial ownership information from the report of that ultimate legal entity is expressly waived.

a) in the case of Section 2(1)(a), whether the legal entity is owned by the beneficial owner (specifying the share of shares or participation) or whether the beneficial owner holds voting rights (specifying the share) or is otherwise under the control of the beneficial owner (specifying the share over which control is exercised, if this can be determined, and whether a relevant trust relationship exists and whether the beneficial owner is a trustee or settlor);

b) in the case of Section 2(1)(b), whether the beneficial owner is a member of the management of the legal entity and whether there is no beneficial owner or whether, after exhausting all possibilities, the beneficial owners could not be identified and verified;

c) In the case of Section 2(2), which of the functions specified in Section 2(2)(a) to (d) the beneficial owner performs, or whether the beneficial owner exercises another form of control pursuant to Section 2(2)(e), and indicating whether the beneficial owner is a trustee or settlor. In the case of trustees/settlors, the respective share of the assets contributed must be indicated, taking into account transactions comparable to subsequent foundations and endowments;

d) In the case of Section 2(3), which of the functions specified in Section 2(3)(a)(aa) to (cc) or (b)(aa) to (cc) the beneficial owner performs in the case of private foundations or foundations and funds pursuant to Section 1(2)(15) and (16), or whether the beneficial owner exercises another form of control pursuant to Section 2(3)(a)(dd) or (b)(dd), and indicating whether the beneficial owner is a trustee or settlor. For donors, founders, and persons holding a comparable position in trust-like arrangements, the respective share of the assets contributed must be indicated, taking into account subsequent contributions and similar transactions;

e) in all other cases, that beneficial ownership is established by other means.

For legal entities pursuant to Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, any beneficiaries must be specified.

3a. […]

4. […]

(2-7) […]

[…]

Maintenance of the register of beneficial owners

Section 7. (1) For the purposes of preventing the use of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing, implementing directly applicable sanctions of the European Union and sanctions under the Sanctions Act, ensuring the transparency of beneficial owners in the awarding of public subsidies, public contracts and concessions, and for the presentation of foreign trade statistics on international relations, the registration authority shall maintain a register of beneficial owners (register) as a regularly updated, chronologically stratified collection of data and shall use the statutory data processors referred to in paragraph 5 for this purpose. This register shall contain the data referred to in Section 5, Section 5a and this provision, as well as the data of the authorized representatives, the owners of the legal entities, where possible using the sector-specific personal identifier of the ‘Taxes and Duties – SA’ sector, and the data concerning the legal entities pursuant to Section 25 paragraph 1 items 1 to 5, 7 and 9 of the Federal Statistics Act 2000. If the authorized representatives or owners are natural persons, their name, date of birth, and, if available, place of birth, nationality, residence, and the number and type of official photo ID must be recorded. If they are legal entities, their name, registered office, legal form, company registration number, and company register entry must be recorded.

If the authorized representatives or owners are natural persons, their name, date of birth, place of birth (if applicable), nationality (if applicable), residence (if applicable), and type of official photo ID must be recorded. (2) The Federal Statistical Office of Austria, as the data processor for the registration authority, shall receive the following data for inclusion in the register:

1. legal entities registered in the Commercial Register pursuant to Section 25(1)(1) to (5) of the Federal Statistics Act 2000, as well as data on capital participation in legal entities and any changes thereto (corrections, deletions):

2. legal entities registered in the Register of Associations pursuant to Section 1(2)(14),

3. legal entities registered in the Register of Foundations and Funds pursuant to Section 1(2)(15), and

4. legal entities registered in registers established pursuant to a provincial law pursuant to Section 1(2)(16).

In the cases referred to in points 1 and 2, the competent authorities shall transmit this data electronically and free of charge without delay after becoming aware of it, via an interface defined by the Federal Statistical Office. The official representatives of associations (§16 para. 1 items 7 and 8 of the Associations Act) must be reported using the encrypted, sector-specific personal identification number of the ‘Taxes and Duties – SA’ sector. The registration authority is responsible for ensuring that foundations and funds pursuant to items 3 and 4 are entered in the supplementary register for other affected parties and that any changes that come to its attention are recorded. The authorities responsible in each case pursuant to items 3 and 4 must transmit the necessary data to the registration authority. Statistics Austria must transfer the data stored in the Business Register pursuant to §25 para. 1 items 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Federal Statistics Act 2000 into the register for each legal entity. This also includes legal entities listed in the supplementary register for other affected parties with the legal forms ‘trust’, ‘trust-like agreement’, and ‘reportable foreign legal entity’. Insofar as data transfer is possible, the obligation for the respective responsible authorities to transmit the data separately is waived. Section 25, paragraphs 3 to 5, of the Federal Statistics Act 2000 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

(2a) Statistics Austria shall merge all persons stored in the register who are not resident in Austria, whose name, date of birth, and place of birth are identical, and for whom no sector-specific personal identification number is stored, for the purpose of improving the search function. All other data relating to these persons shall be stored in the data record of the respective legal entity and may differ.

(3) Statistics Austria shall take appropriate measures to ensure that data concerning a beneficial owner of a company are no longer accessible in the register of beneficial owners after ten years from the end of their beneficial ownership of that company, and data concerning a legal entity are no longer accessible after ten years from the end of the legal entity’s dissolution.

(4) The data concerning beneficial owners shall be transmitted to Statistics Austria, which may process this data for statistical purposes.

(5) The registration authority is the data controller for the register. The Austrian Federal Statistical Office and the Federal Computing Centre GmbH are the statutory data processors for the register, unless expressly stated otherwise.

Commissioning of the Federal Computing Centre GmbH and Statistics Austria

Section 8. The Federal Minister of Finance shall commission Statistics Austria and the Federal Computing Centre GmbH with the establishment, including the creation of the necessary connections, operation, and further development of the register. Cooperation between Statistics Austria and the Federal Computing Centre GmbH shall be coordinated with the Federal Minister of Finance. The services of Statistics Austria shall be provided in accordance with Section 32 of the Federal Statistics Act 2000, and the services of the Federal Computing Centre GmbH shall be provided in accordance with Section 5 of the Federal Computing Centre GmbH Act.

Access to the Register by Obligated Parties

Section 9. (1) The following are considered obliged entities within the meaning of this Federal Act and are entitled to inspect the register in accordance with paragraph 2:

1. Credit institutions pursuant to Section 2(1) of the FM-GwG, wind-down companies pursuant to Section 162 of the BaSAG, wind-down units established pursuant to Section 2 of the GSA, wind-down units pursuant to Section 83 of the BaSAG, and insurance undertakings pursuant to Section 2(2)(b) of the FM-GwG;

2. Credit and financial institutions pursuant to Section 2(1) and (2) of the FM-GwG that are subject to the supervision of the FMA pursuant to Section 25(1) of the FM-GwG, insofar as they are not covered under point 1;

3. Financial institutions pursuant to Section 2(2) of the FM-GwG that are not subject to the supervision of the FMA pursuant to Section 25(1) of the FM-GwG;

4. Federal concession holders pursuant to Sections 14 and 21 of the GSpG;

5. Licensed operators of slot machines and betting establishments based on a state-level license, in accordance with state regulations;

6. Lawyers;

7. Notaries;

8. Auditors pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the Austrian Auditing and Tax Consulting Act 2017;

9. Tax advisors pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the Austrian Auditing and Tax Consulting Act 2017;

10. Certified accountants, bookkeepers, and payroll accountants pursuant to Section 1 of the Austrian Accounting and Tax Consulting Act 2014;

11. Merchants pursuant to Section 365m1 Paragraph 2 Item 1 Letters a and b of the Austrian Trade Regulation Act 1994 and merchants pursuant to Section 365m1 Paragraph 2 Item 1 Letter c of the Austrian Trade Regulation Act 1994;

12. Real estate agents pursuant to Section 365m1 Paragraph 2 Item 2 of the Austrian Trade Regulation Act 1994;

13. Management consultants pursuant to Section 365m1 Paragraph 2 Item 3 of the Trade Regulation Act 1994;

14. Insurance intermediaries pursuant to Section 365m1 Paragraph 2 Item 4 of the Trade Regulation Act 1994;

15. The Austrian Federal Financing Agency;

16. Providers of crypto asset services pursuant to Section 2 Item 22 of the Financial Market Money Laundering Act.

(2) Obligated entities may only inspect the register within the scope of applying their due diligence obligations to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing to their clients. Furthermore, obligated entities pursuant to Paragraph 1 Items 6 to 10 may inspect the register for the purpose of advising their clients, and cooperative auditing associations may inspect the register for the purpose of advising their members, in each case with regard to the identification, verification, and reporting of the beneficial owners of their clients, and for the purpose of advising beneficial owners with regard to the submission of applications pursuant to Sections 10a and 14 Paragraph 7.

(2) (2a) If a legitimate interest exists pursuant to Section 10(2), in cases where the applicant wishes to enter into a business relationship with a legal entity that, due to economic or personal elements, is likely to establish a sufficient interest for the applicant in the identity of the beneficial owner of the legal entity, obliged entities pursuant to paragraph 1, items 6 to 9, may request extracts pursuant to Section 10 on behalf of and at the request of a client, provided that the existence of the legitimate interest is demonstrated to the professional representative of the parties. Furthermore, a legitimate interest exists for insolvency administrators for the purposes of insolvency proceedings and for notaries acting as court commissioners for the purposes of probate proceedings.

(2b) Public institutions that, in the course of their activities, award public funds as subsidies or that award public contracts and concessions may, upon application to the registration authority, exercise their right to access information as obliged entities for the purpose of ensuring the transparency of beneficial owners in the awarding of public subsidies, public contracts, or concessions. In such cases, these entities may inspect the register as part of their review of legal entities that are applicants or recipients of subsidies, as well as applicants and bidders in public procurement or concession procedures. The provisions of this Federal Act apply, with the exception of Section 11, paragraphs 1 to 2a and paragraph 6. Section 11, paragraph 3, applies with the proviso that the obligation to make an entry exists if it is obvious to the public institution that the data on beneficial owners recorded in the register are incorrect or incomplete. The Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction over appeals against decisions of the registration authority.

(2c) The Austrian National Bank, which, in the context of its foreign trade statistics activities, represents foreign relations, may use the right of access as an obligated entity for the purposes of compiling foreign trade statistics. In such cases, it may inspect the register as part of its review of legal entities relevant to foreign trade statistics. The provisions of this Federal Act shall apply with the exception of Section 11, paragraphs 1 to 2a and paragraph 6. Section 11, paragraph 3, shall apply with the proviso that the obligation to make an entry exists if it is obvious to the Austrian National Bank that the data concerning the beneficial owners recorded in the register are incorrect or incomplete. The Federal Administrative Court shall have jurisdiction over appeals against decisions of the registration authority.

(3) Access to the register shall be via the Business Service Portal and shall be guaranteed by an extract bearing an official signature of the registration authority pursuant to paragraph 4 or an extended extract pursuant to paragraph 5. Search terms may only be specific legal entities or specific natural persons. A search for a natural person is permitted only for those obligated under Section 9, paragraph 1, items 1, 4, and 6 to 10. Furthermore, it is necessary that the natural person can be uniquely identified in addition to their name by entering one or more additional identifiers. All access data must be kept confidential. Obligated entities must ensure that unauthorized third parties do not have access to the access data and any necessary tools. Access to the documents transmitted pursuant to Section 5(2) and the valid compliance package stored for a legal entity must be guaranteed via the Business Service Portal. Upon request, a simple or extended extract must also include historical data pursuant to Section 4(1) to (4), Section 5(a) to (d), (f) and (g), Section 6(a) to (d), (f) to (h), Section 7 and 8, and Section 5(2). A web service of the Business Service Portal may also be used for the purposes of this paragraph.

(4) Obligated entities may request an extract from the register bearing an official signature of the registration authority via the Business Service Portal. This extract will be provided to them by means of automated data transmission via the Business Service Portal. This extract contains the following information:

1. Name of the legal entity and address details;

2. Register number and register number of the legal entity;

3. Legal form and information on the period of existence of the legal entity;

4. NACE code for the main activities of the legal entity, insofar as this has been determined pursuant to Section 21 of the Federal Statistics Act 2000;

5. The following information on direct beneficial owners:

a) Name;

b) Date of birth;

c) Nationality;

d) Place of birth;

e) Residence;

f) Nature and extent of the beneficial interest;

g) Where available, confirmation that a beneficial owner is deceased;

6. The following information on all indirect beneficial owners:

a) Name;

b) Date of birth;

c) Nationality;

d) Place of birth;

e) Residence;

f) The information pursuant to items 1 to 4 on the respective ultimate legal entities, where available;

g) Nature and extent of the beneficial interest;

h) where available, information that a beneficial owner has died;

7. the date of the last notification and whether an exemption from the notification requirement pursuant to Section 6 applies;

7a. information on whether the beneficial owners were identified and verified by a professional representative;

7b. information on whether a valid compliance package for the legal entity is available for review;

7c. if the beneficial owners were identified pursuant to Section 2(1)(b), information on whether, after exhausting all possibilities, the beneficial owners could not be identified and verified;

7d. type of insolvency proceedings;

7e. information on whether relevant trusts exist pursuant to Section 5(1)(3a);

7f. information on whether a legal entity has been legally determined to be a shell company pursuant to the Austrian Federal Act on the Protection of the Constitution (SBBG);

7g. information on whether a measure under the Austrian Sanctions Act (SanktG) has been registered against a legal entity;

8. The fact that a valid entry exists in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 4 and Section 13 Paragraph 3;

9. Indication of whether and from which source the data were obtained from Statistics Austria, and, in the case of reported data, a statement that it is data reported by the legal entity;

10. A statement that no guarantee can be given for the accuracy and completeness of the data.

If a disclosure restriction exists pursuant to the Associations Act, the extract contains, instead of the information specified in points 1, 2, 5, and 6, only the name of the association, its registration number, and the indication that the association’s registered office is located in Austria, as well as a statement that a disclosure restriction exists. This does not apply to entities obligated under Paragraph 1, points 1, 2, and 7. For these entities, the extract must contain, instead of the residences of the direct and indirect beneficial owners specified in points 5 and 6, only the country of residence and a statement that a disclosure restriction exists. When searching for natural persons who are beneficial owners of an association for which a disclosure restriction exists, this association must not be displayed in the search results. If a disclosure restriction exists pursuant to the Registration Act, the extract will contain, instead of the information required under points 5 and 6, only the statement that the person is resident in Austria and a note indicating that a disclosure restriction is in place. For beneficiaries of legal entities pursuant to Section 1(2) points 12, 17, and 18, and comparable legal entities domiciled in another Member State or a third country that are the ultimate legal entities, the extract, except for those obligated under paragraph 1 points 1, 2, and 7, must contain only the country of residence instead of the residences of the direct and indirect beneficial owners as required under points 5 and 6.

(5) Obligated entities may request an extended extract from the register, bearing an official signature of the registration authority, via the Business Service Portal. This extract will be provided to them by means of automated data transmission via the Business Service Portal. In addition to the information specified in paragraph 4, this extract will contain the following information:

1. An automatically generated representation of all known levels of ownership based on the entries in the register, provided these are relevant for determining the beneficial owner and data on the respective legal entities are available in the register. If insufficient data is available for individual levels, it must be indicated that no data is available. The representation must be limited to 20 levels.

2. The data pursuant to paragraph 4, point 5, letters a to d and g, relating to the authorized representatives of the legal entity, insofar as these are recorded in the register, and to the calculated beneficial owners. The data pursuant to paragraph 4, point 6, letter f, relating to the calculated ultimate legal entities.

3. Indication of whether and from which source the data were obtained from Statistics Austria, and a statement that it is an automated presentation;

4. Indication of whether it is a complete extended extract; this is the case if all data are complete, the reported data match the automatically generated data, and there are no outstanding entries;

5. A statement that no guarantee can be given for the accuracy of the data.

(5a) If an extended extract from the register is requested, the obliged entity can view an uploaded compliance package and download the documents stored therein. If the compliance package refers to another compliance package, an extended extract can also be requested for the legal entity to which it refers, and its compliance package can be viewed. If the compliance package or a referenced compliance package was only made available upon request, and the obliged entity was not already granted access to it during the notification process, the obliged entity can request access to the relevant compliance package via the Business Service Portal, stating the reasons and providing an email address. In this case, the legal entity and/or the authorized professional representative must be informed electronically of the request via the Business Service Portal, including the name and registration number of the requesting obliged entity and the reasons for the request. The legal entity itself and/or the professional representative can then grant access to the compliance package to the requesting obliged entity for a period of four weeks within two weeks. If access is not granted within two weeks, the request is automatically rejected. The requesting obliged entity must be informed electronically of the approval or rejection of its request. The obliged entity may use the documents contained in the compliance package within the scope of its due diligence obligations for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. The legal entity itself and/or the professional party representative may revoke the granted approval for a compliance package within the four-week period. In this case, the requesting obliged entity must be informed electronically.

(5b) If the notification from a professional party representative pursuant to Section 5(1)(4) indicates that inquiries relating to a notification or a compliance package may be forwarded to the professional party representative and/or the legal entity, then the obliged entity must be given the opportunity to contact them electronically when inspecting the register via the Business Service Portal.

(5b) (6) If data for the precise determination of the classification of obliged entities pursuant to paragraph 1, items 1 to 10 and 12 to 14, cannot be transmitted from the commercial register or are already available to the commercial service portal, the supervisory authorities responsible for the obliged entities referred to in paragraph 1, items 1 to 4 and 6 to 14, shall transmit the name and registration number of the obliged entities under their supervision electronically, where possible via an interface or an online application, free of charge to the registration authority. Changes to the data required for participation should be transmitted as soon as possible, ideally within one week of the change. An obliged entity pursuant to paragraph 1, items 1 to 10 and 12 to 14, may request access to this data from the supervisory authority responsible for it, provided that such access has not already been granted automatically. When granting access to the register, the supervisory authority shall transmit the name and registration number of the obliged entity in question to the registration authority electronically, where possible via an interface or an online application. This paragraph shall also apply, in accordance with state law, to the supervisory authorities responsible for the obliged entities referred to in paragraph 1, point 5.

(7) Traders may declare to the competent trade authority that they are subject to the provisions of the Trade Regulation Act (GewO) for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing and apply for access to the register. Financial institutions pursuant to Section 2, point 2, letter a of the Financial Markets Money Laundering Act (FM-GwG), which are not subject to the supervision of the Financial Market Authority (FMA) pursuant to Section 25, paragraph 1 of the FM-GwG, may apply to the competent trade authority for access to the register. When granting access, the trade authority shall transmit the name and registration number of the obliged entity in question to the registration authority electronically, where possible via an interface or an online application.

(7) (7a) For the purposes of unambiguous identification pursuant to Section 4 of the E-Government Act (E-GovG) within the system for the interconnection of the registers of beneficial owners of the European Union pursuant to Article 30(10) and Article 31(9) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, the Federal Minister of Finance shall record and make accessible to the Central Register Authority whether a natural person is authorized to query data via the system for the interconnection of the registers of beneficial owners of the European Union on behalf of an obliged entity referred to in Section 9(1), items 3 to 6 and 8 to 16, or in Section 9(1), items 1, 2, and 7. All natural persons who are authorized to query the register of beneficial owners for one of the aforementioned obliged entities shall be considered authorized. The Federal Minister of Finance shall delete the data immediately after the authorization ceases.

(8) Statistics Austria shall record data on usage processes, such as queries, entries, and changes, in an appropriate manner so that compliance with the provisions of this Federal Act and the data protection regulations can be verified.

(8) (9) Statistics Austria shall make the basic data of those legal entities available for retrieval daily via an interface if the following applies (change service):

1. a notification pursuant to Section 5(1), (5), or (6) has been entered,

2. a notification pursuant to Section 5(1), (5), or (6) has been entered that results in a change to the data stored in Section 5(4), point 5(a), (f), or (g), and in Section 6(a), (f), (g), or (h),

3. a notification pursuant to Section 5(1) or (5), or an amendment to a compliance package pursuant to Section 5a(8), has been entered that results in a change to the data pursuant to Section 5a(1), points 1 to 4,

4. for a legal entity that has submitted a notification pursuant to Section 5, this notification will have been in effect for more than one year in four weeks (entry into the annual reporting obligation), or a notification has been terminated pursuant to Section 5(5), last sentence, or a legal entity that is exempt from the reporting obligation pursuant to Section 6 no longer falls within the scope of Section 6,

5. the holding period The beneficial ownership of a legal entity was terminated in the register,

6. the legal entity was entered in the register as having entered insolvency proceedings,

7. the legal entity was entered in the register as having been legally determined to be a shell company pursuant to the SBBG (German Act on the Protection of Intellectual Property), or

8. the legal entity was entered in the register as having been sanctioned pursuant to the Sanctions Act (SanktG).

Access to the register upon demonstration of a legitimate interest

Section 10. (1) Natural persons and organizations who can demonstrate a legitimate interest pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 may access the register electronically. Access to the register shall be granted by means of an extract bearing the official signature of the registering authority, containing the following information:

1. the information pursuant to Section 9(4)(1) to (3) concerning the legal entity and pursuant to Section 9(4)(5)(a) to (c) concerning direct beneficial owners and the information pursuant to Section 9(4)(6)(a) to (c) concerning indirect beneficial owners, as well as the country of residence in each case, and

2. with regard to the nature and extent of the beneficial interest, an indication of whether this is established by:

a) an equity participation, if a case under Section 2(1)(a) exists due to the existence of ownership,

b) membership in the management level, if a case under Section 2(1)(b) exists,

c) the exercise of a function, if a case under Section 2(2)(a) to (d), Section 2(3)(a)(a) to (cc), or Section 2(3)(b)(a) to (cc) exists, or

d) control, if a case under Section 2(1)(a) exists due to the existence of control is given, a case of §2 Z2 lite, §2 Z3 lita sublitdd or §2 Z3 litb sublitdd exists.

(2) Natural persons and organisations may submit an application to the registration authority electronically for a query of one or more specific legal entities, provided they demonstrate a legitimate interest. A legitimate interest in connection with the prevention of money laundering or terrorist financing, or the implementation of directly applicable sanctions of the European Union and sanctions under the Sanctions Act, is presumed for members of journalistic professions, academics, and civil society organisations that have a connection to the prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing, or the circumvention of the aforementioned sanctions. Evidence of a legitimate interest includes, in any case, a relevant journalistic or academic contribution, a commitment by the applicant in its statutes or mission statement to engage in such activities, or concrete successful activities in this regard. A legitimate interest also exists if the applicant is himself an obliged entity under Directive (EU) 2015/849 as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 and is not already entitled to access the register pursuant to Section 9 or the system for the interconnection of the registers of beneficial owners of the European Union pursuant to Article 30(10) and Article 31(9) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, or is an obliged entity of the same type located in a third country. Furthermore, a legitimate interest exists if the applicant wishes to enter into a business relationship with a legal entity that, due to economic or personal elements, is likely to give rise to a sufficient interest in the identity of the beneficial owner of that legal entity. After approval of the application, the applicant will be sent an email with a link for payment of the usage fee and subsequent retrieval of the extract, which will be valid for a period of four weeks. The registration authority must issue a formal decision if the application is rejected. The Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction over appeals against decisions of the registration authority.

(3) When submitting an application pursuant to paragraph 2, when retrieving extracts pursuant to paragraph 2, and whenever using the user account, the applicant must prove their identity by means of an electronic identity document (e-ID) in accordance with the E-Government Act (E-GovG). Notwithstanding the above, nationals of states that have not implemented this verification procedure and obliged entities that do not have access to the register via the system for the interconnection of the registers of beneficial owners of the European Union pursuant to Article 30(10) and Article 31(9) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 may submit a written application to the registration authority, providing suitable proof of identity.

(4) If an application is submitted for or by an organization, the natural person submitting the application must prove their affiliation with or authorization by the organization. Should the affiliation with or authorization by the organization for this natural person cease, the organization or the natural person submitting the application must notify the registration authority immediately.

(4) (5) Every legal entity may retrieve an extract of its own data in accordance with this provision via the Business Service Portal.

Restriction of Access in Exceptional Circumstances

Section 10a. (1) Upon written application by a beneficial owner, the registration authority shall decide that data concerning that beneficial owner shall not be displayed in extracts from the register for obliged entities pursuant to Section 9(1), items 3 to 6 and 8 to 16, and in extracts pursuant to Section 10, if the beneficial owner demonstrates that, taking into account all circumstances of the individual case, overriding legitimate interests of the beneficial owner preclude access (restriction of access). The application must specify the legal entities for which access is to be restricted. The restriction of access means that the data concerning the beneficial owner will not be displayed in extracts from the register for the requested legal entities, and instead, a reference will be made to the restriction of access pursuant to this section.

(Section 10a. (1)) (2) Overriding legitimate interests of the beneficial owner exist if there are grounds to believe that granting access to the information would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of becoming a victim of one of the following offenses:

1. fraud under Sections 146 to 148 of the German Criminal Code (StGB),

2. extortionate kidnapping under Section 102 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) or extortion under Sections 144 and 145 of the German Criminal Code (StGB),

3. an offense against life or limb under Sections 75, 76, and 83 to 87 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), or

4. coercion under Sections 105 and 106 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), dangerous threats under Section 107 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), or persistent harassment under Section 107a of the German Criminal Code (StGB).

Overriding legitimate interests of the beneficial owner exist in any case if the beneficial owner is a minor or legally incapacitated. A risk is considered disproportionate if, based on the facts, the probability of a crime being committed against the beneficial owner appears significantly higher than for average beneficial owners in a comparable position, particularly because crimes have already been committed or threatened against the beneficial owner or close relatives in the past, or because other circumstances indicate a particular risk. The mere fact that beneficial ownership becomes known generally does not constitute a disproportionate risk. The beneficial owner has no legitimate interests if the data is already available in other public registers.

(3) If the beneficial owner submits an application to restrict access before a notification is filed, it may be requested that extracts from the register of beneficial owners for the legal entities concerned may only be accessed by those obligated under Section 9(1)(1), (2), and (7) of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) and authorities (restriction of access). The registration authority must suspend access to the data by the end of the second working day following the application and maintain this suspension for a maximum of 14 days. Within 14 days of receiving the application, the registration authority must order that data concerning this beneficial owner not be displayed in extracts from the register for the specified legal entities, unless the application is manifestly unfounded (order restricting access). If the relevant notification is submitted only after the application, the time limit for the order restricting access begins only upon entry of the notification in the register. In this case, the time limit for suspending access is extended accordingly.

(3a) The registration authority must issue a formal decision within twelve months of receiving the application for restriction of access, taking into careful consideration all the circumstances of the individual case. The application for restriction of access may be granted in whole or in part with regard to the legal entities for which access to the data of a beneficial owner is restricted. If the overriding legitimate interests of the beneficial owner can be protected by restricting access only to the data relating to their residence, then only this data shall be restricted. The Federal Administrative Court shall have jurisdiction over appeals against decisions of the registration authority.

(4) The restriction of access shall be granted for a period of five years. In the case of minor beneficial owners, it shall be granted until they reach the age of majority. If the conditions for restricting access cease to exist before the expiry of this period, the beneficial owner shall notify the registration authority in writing. An extension of the restriction of access is permissible if the beneficial owner demonstrates to the registration authority that exceptional, overriding legitimate interests of the beneficial owner continue to preclude access.

(5) If an obligated party is searching for a beneficial owner for whom access has been restricted at one or more legal entities, a statement indicating that access has been restricted pursuant to this provision shall be displayed instead of the data of the legal entity. This does not apply to persons obliged pursuant to Section 9(1)(1), (2), and (7).

(6) If a new notification results in a change to a data record concerning a beneficial owner for whom access has been restricted, the restriction on access also applies to the amended data record, provided that the beneficial owner in question is uniquely identified by a sector-specific personal identifier of the ‘Taxes and Duties – SA’ sector.

(7) The registration authority shall publish annual statistical data on the number of exemptions granted and, in general terms, the reasons for them on the website of the Federal Ministry of Finance and submit this data to the European Commission.

2. The relevant provision of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (hereinafter: 4.The Anti-Money Laundering Directive (OJ 2015 L 141, 73), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 (hereinafter: 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), OJ 2018 L 156, 43, or as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (hereinafter: 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), OJ L 2024, 94, 1, reads as follows: 2. The relevant provision of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (hereinafter: the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 (hereinafter: the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43, and as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (hereinafter: the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), OJ L 2024, p. 94, p. 1, reads as follows: as follows:

“Article 3

For the purposes of this Directive, the term

[…]

6. ‘beneficial owner’ means any natural person who ultimately owns or controls the Customer and/or the natural person(s) on whose behalf a transaction or activity is carried out; this includes at least the following:

(a) in the case of companies:

(i) any natural person who ultimately owns or controls a legal person—not a company listed on a regulated market and subject to disclosure requirements in accordance with Union law or equivalent international standards ensuring adequate transparency of information on ownership—by means of direct or indirect holding of a sufficient proportion of shares or voting rights, or a participation in that legal person, including in the form of bearer shares, or by other forms of control.

If a natural person holds a share of 25% plus one share or a participation of more than 25% in the Customer, this shall be deemed to indicate that Direct ownership. If a company controlled by one or more natural persons, or several companies controlled by the same natural person or persons, hold a shareholding of 25% plus one share or a holding of more than 25% in the customer, this shall be considered an indication of indirect ownership. This is without prejudice to the right of Member States to decide that a lower percentage may be considered an indication of ownership or control. Other forms of control may be determined, inter alia, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 22(1) to (5) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (29);

ii) if, after exhausting all possibilities and provided there are no grounds for suspicion, no person has been identified as referred to in point (i), or if there is the slightest doubt that the identified person(s) is/are the beneficial owner(s), the natural person(s) belonging to the management level; obliged entities shall keep records of the measures taken to identify the beneficial ownership as defined in point (i) and this paragraph;

(b) in the case of trusts, all of the following persons:

(i) the settlor(s);

(ii) the trustee(s);

(iii) the protector(s), if any;

(iv) the beneficiaries or, if the individuals who are the beneficiaries of the legal arrangement or legal person have yet to be determined, the group of persons in whose interest the legal arrangement or legal person is primarily established or operated;

(v) any other natural person who ultimately controls the trust by direct or indirect ownership rights or otherwise;

(c) in the case of legal persons such as foundations and legal arrangements similar to trusts, the natural person(s) who performs functions equivalent or similar to those referred to in point (b);

[…]

CHAPTER III

INFORMATION ON THE BECOME OWNER

Article 30

(1) Member States shall ensure that that companies or other legal persons registered in their territory must obtain and retain adequate, accurate, and up-to-date information on beneficial owners, including precise details of their beneficial interests. Member States shall also ensure that effective, proportionate, and dissuasive measures or sanctions are imposed for infringements of this Article.

They shall ensure that, when these companies and other legal persons apply customer due diligence obligations under Chapter II, they provide obliged entities with information on their beneficial owners in addition to information on their legal owners.

Member States shall require that the beneficial owners of companies or other legal persons, including through shares, voting rights, participations, bearer shares, or other forms of control, provide these entities with all the necessary information to enable the company or other legal person to comply with the requirements of paragraph 1. can.

(2) Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities and the central reporting offices have timely access to the information referred to in paragraph 1.

(3) Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is kept in a central register in each Member State, for example, in a commercial or companies register referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council […] or in a public register. Member States shall provide the Commission with a description of the features of these national mechanisms. The beneficial owner information in these databases may be collected in accordance with the national systems.

(4) Member States shall ensure that the information kept in the central register pursuant to paragraph 3 is adequate, accurate, and up-to-date, and shall establish appropriate mechanisms. These mechanisms shall include an obligation for obliged entities and—where appropriate and provided that this obligation does not unduly impair their functions—for the competent authorities to report any discrepancies they find between the beneficial owner information available in the central registers and the information they have provided. The information available on the beneficial owners shall be verified. If discrepancies are reported, Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures are taken to rectify these discrepancies promptly and, if necessary, that a corresponding entry is made in the central register in the meantime.

(5) Member States shall ensure that the information on the beneficial owner is accessible in all cases to:

a) the competent authorities and the central reporting offices, without limitation;

b) obliged entities in the context of customer due diligence in accordance with Chapter II;

c) any person or organization that can demonstrate a legitimate interest.

The persons or organizations referred to in subparagraph 1(c) shall have access to at least the name, month and year of birth, country of residence, and nationality of the beneficial owner, as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest.

Member States may, under conditions to be laid down in national law, provide for access to further information enabling the identification of the beneficial owner. This further information shall include, in the In accordance with data protection regulations, at least the date of birth or contact details.

(5a) Member States may decide to make the information stored in their national registers pursuant to paragraph 3 available on the condition that online registration takes place and a fee is paid, which may not exceed the administrative costs of making the information available, including the costs of operating and developing the register.

(6) Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities and the central reporting offices have timely and unhindered access, without restrictions and without informing the undertaking concerned, to all the information stored in the central register pursuant to paragraph 3. Member States shall also allow obliged entities to access this information in a timely manner when carrying out their customer due diligence obligations under Chapter II. can.

The competent authorities to which access to the central register referred to in paragraph 3 must be granted are all authorities to which powers for combating money laundering or terrorist financing have been assigned, as well as tax authorities, supervisory authorities of obliged entities, and authorities responsible for investigations or prosecutions in cases of money laundering and related predicate offenses and terrorist financing, as well as for the investigation, seizure, freezing, and confiscation of assets derived from criminal offenses.

(7) Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities and central reporting offices are able to provide the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 to the competent authorities and central reporting offices of other Member States promptly and free of charge.

(8) Member States shall require that obliged entities may not rely solely on the central register referred to in paragraph 3 to fulfill their customer due diligence obligations under Chapter II. A risk-based approach shall be applied when fulfilling these obligations. (9) In exceptional circumstances, to be defined by national law, where the beneficial owner would be exposed to a disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, harassment, violence, or intimidation by the access referred to in paragraph 5, subparagraph 1, points (b) and (c), or where the beneficial owner is a minor or otherwise legally incapacitated, Member States may, on a case-by-case basis, provide for an exception to the said full or partial access to the beneficial owner’s information. Member States shall ensure that such exceptions are granted after a thorough assessment of the exceptional nature of the circumstances. The rights to administrative review of the decision on the exception and to an effective legal remedy shall be respected. A Member State that has granted exceptions shall publish annual statistical data on the number of exceptions granted and the reasons for them and submit this data to the Commission.

Member States that have granted exceptions shall The exemptions granted pursuant to subparagraph 1 of this paragraph shall not apply to credit and financial institutions or to obliged entities referred to in Article 2(1), subparagraph 3(b), who are public servants.

(10) Member States shall ensure that the central registers referred to in paragraph 3 are interconnected via the central European platform established by Article 22(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council […]. The interconnection of the Member States’ central registers with the platform shall be carried out in accordance with the technical specifications and procedures laid down by implementing acts adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 24 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 and Article 31a of this Directive.

Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is available via the network of national registers in accordance with Article 22(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 and in accordance with the national legislation implementing paragraphs 5, 5a and 6 of this Article.

The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall remain publicly accessible via the national registers and the network of national registers for a period of at least five and at most ten years after a company or other legal person has been removed from the register. Member States shall cooperate with each other and with the Commission to implement the various types of access provided for in this Article.

III. Recitals

The appeal, which is admissible, is unfounded.

1. The relevant legal situation is as follows:

1.1. The establishment of the Register of Beneficial Owners is based on Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) 2012/648 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, OJ L 2015, 141, 73 (the so-called Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). At the time of the contested judgment, this Directive was in force (and is currently in force) – with the exception of Article 30(5), first and second subparagraphs – as amended. Directive (EU) 2018/843, OJ L 2018, 156, 43 (the so-called Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). Article 30(5), first and second subparagraphs, applies as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/1640, OJ L 2024, 94, 1 (the so-called Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive).

Pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Member States shall ensure that companies or other legal persons registered in their territory obtain and retain adequate, accurate, and up-to-date information on their beneficial owners, including precise details of their beneficial interests. They shall ensure that these companies and other legal persons, when exercising customer due diligence, provide obliged entities with information on their beneficial owners in addition to information on their legal owners. The version of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive requires that companies or other legal persons registered in their territory obtain and retain adequate, accurate, and up-to-date information on their beneficial owners, including precise details of their beneficial interest. They must ensure that these companies and other legal persons provide obliged entities with information on their beneficial owners, in addition to information on their legal owners, when exercising due diligence towards customers.

In accordance with Article 30(5), first subparagraph, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Member States must ensure that information on the beneficial owner is accessible to the competent authorities and the central reporting offices in all cases and without restriction (lit. a) and to obliged entities when conducting due diligence towards customers (lit. b). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30(5), first subparagraph, in conjunction with second subparagraph, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Member States must ensure that persons or organizations with a legitimate interest have access to at least the name, month, the year of birth, country of residence, nationality of the beneficial owner, and the nature and extent of the beneficial interest. In accordance with Article 30(5), first subparagraph, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Member States shall ensure that information on the beneficial owner is accessible to the competent authorities and central reporting offices in all cases and without restriction (lit. a) and to obliged entities in the context of customer due diligence (lit. b). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30(5), first subparagraph, in conjunction with second subparagraph, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Member States shall ensure that persons or organizations with a legitimate interest have access to at least the name, month, year of birth, country of residence, nationality of the beneficial owner, and the nature and extent of the beneficial interest.

The Directive thus distinguishes between an unrestricted right of access for authorities and central reporting offices (Article 30(5), first subparagraph, and the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, and the right of access for obliged entities in the context of customer due diligence (lit. b). The Directive differentiates between an unrestricted right of access for authorities and central reporting offices (Article 30(5)(1)(a) of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), a right of access for obliged entities limited to due diligence towards customers (Article 30(5)(1)(b) of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive), and a right of access for persons with a legitimate interest (Article 30(5)(1)(c) of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive). (Article 30(5), subparagraph 1(c) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive) differentiates.

Article 30(5), subparagraph 3 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, allows Member States to establish conditions in their national law that provide for access to further information enabling the identification of the beneficial owner. In accordance with data protection regulations, this further information includes at least the date of birth or contact details.

1.2. In Austria, the Federal Act on the Establishment of a Register of Beneficial Owners of Companies, Other Legal Entities, and Trusts was enacted to implement the requirements of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The Beneficial Owners Register Act (WiEReG), Federal Law Gazette I 136/2017, was enacted. The Beneficial Owners Register Act contains, in particular, more detailed provisions regarding the establishment and maintenance of a register within the meaning of Article 30 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives. In Austria, to implement the requirements of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the Federal Act on the Establishment of a Register of Beneficial Owners of Companies, Other Legal Entities, and Trusts (Beneficial Owners Register Act – WiEReG), Federal Law Gazette Part One, 136 of 2017, was enacted. The Beneficial Owners Register Act contains, in particular, more detailed provisions regarding the establishment and maintenance of a register within the meaning of Article 30 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives.

1.2.1. Beneficial owners are defined as all natural persons who ultimately own or control a legal entity (§2 WiEReG). In the case of private foundations, this includes the founders (§2 para. 3 lita sublitaa WiEReG), certain beneficiaries (§2 para. 3 lita sublitbb WiEReG), members of the foundation’s board of directors (§2 para. 3 lita sublitcc WiEReG), and any other natural person who ultimately controls the private foundation in another way (§2 para. 3 lita sublitdd WiEReG).

1.2.2. §3 WiEReG governs the due diligence obligations of legal entities with regard to their beneficial owners. The legal entities mentioned in §1 para. 2 WiEReG must establish the identity of their beneficial owner and take appropriate measures to verify their identity so that they are satisfied they know who their beneficial owner is. This includes taking appropriate measures to understand the ownership and control structure. Furthermore, if the obliged entities (see Section 9 Paragraph 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)) apply due diligence obligations towards customers, they must provide the obliged entities (see Section 9 Paragraph 1 WiEReG) with conclusive documentation regarding their beneficial owners, in addition to information about their legal owner. 1.2.2. Section 3 of the WiEReG governs the due diligence obligations of legal entities with regard to their beneficial owners. The legal entities mentioned in Section 1 Paragraph 2 of the WiEReG must establish the identity of their beneficial owner and take appropriate measures to verify their identity so that they are satisfied they know who their beneficial owner is. This includes taking appropriate measures to understand the ownership and control structure. Furthermore, if the obliged entities (see Section 9 Paragraph 1 of the WiEReG) apply due diligence obligations towards customers, they must provide the obliged entities (see Section 9 Paragraph 1 WiEReG) with conclusive documentation regarding their beneficial owners, in addition to information about their legal owner.

1.2.3. Owners and beneficial owners of legal entities (including beneficial owners by virtue of shares and bearer shares, voting rights, participations, or other forms of control) must provide the registry authority with all documents and information necessary for fulfilling its due diligence obligations (see Section 3 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)) (see Section 4 WiEReG).

Furthermore, the legal entities must report the data concerning their beneficial owners specified in Section 5 of the WiEReG to Statistics Austria, the Austrian Federal Statistical Office, as the data processor for the registry authority. Private foundations must report the following data on (direct and indirect) beneficial owners to Statistics Austria, acting as the data processor for the registration authority (§5 para. 1 item 1, item 2 lit. a WiEReG): name; if beneficial owners do not have a residence in Austria, the number and type of official photo ID; date and place of birth; nationality; residence. If a beneficial owner is deceased, this must be indicated. In the case of indirect beneficial owners, the following additional data must be reported to the registration authority: if the ultimate legal entity is a legal entity pursuant to §1 WiEReG, the company number and the share of shares, voting rights, or participation of the beneficial owner in the ultimate legal entity. If the ultimate legal entity is a legal entity comparable to one under Section 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) and is domiciled in another Member State or a third country, the following information must be provided: the name and registered office of the legal entity, its legal form, the identifiers corresponding to the registration number and the register, and the share of shares, voting rights, or the beneficial owner’s participation in the ultimate legal entity (Section 5(1)(2)(b) and (c) WiEReG). The disclosure of the nature and extent of the beneficial owner’s economic interest in the reporting legal entity is specified in more detail in Section 5(1)(3) WiEReG.

1.2.4. The registration authority is the data controller for the register and must maintain it in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 7 WiEReG. Statistics Austria and the Federal Computing Centre GmbH are statutory data processors for the register, unless expressly stated otherwise. Section 8 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) stipulates that the Federal Minister of Finance must commission Statistics Austria and the Federal Computing Centre GmbH with the establishment, including the creation of the necessary connections, operation, and further development of the register.

1.2.5. The varying scope of the rights of access to the register for authorities (Section 12 WiEReG), obliged entities (Section 9 WiEReG), and persons with a legitimate interest (Section 10 WiEReG) is regulated in Sections 9 et seq. of the WiEReG:

1.2.5.1. The authorities named in Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the WiEReG have unrestricted access to the register.

1.2.5.2. Obligated entities are entitled to access the register within the framework of their due diligence obligations to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing towards their customers (Section 9 WiEReG).

1.2.5.3. The right to obtain an extract from the register for persons with a legitimate interest is limited compared to authorities and obligated entities (§10 WiEReG):

§10 para. 1 no. 1 WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023 stipulated that the extract from the register for persons with a legitimate interest had to contain the information pursuant to §9 para. 4 nos. 1 to 3 WiEReG regarding the legal entity (name of the legal entity and address details, registration number and registration number of the legal entity and legal form, and information on the period of existence of the legal entity), the information pursuant to §9 para. 4 no. 5 lit. a to c WiEReG regarding direct beneficial owners, and the information pursuant to §9 para. 4 no. 6 lit. a to c WiEReG regarding all indirect beneficial owners (first and last name, date of birth, and nationality in each case), as well as the country of residence in each case. Section 10(1)(1) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023, stipulated that the extract from the register for persons with a legitimate interest had to contain the information pursuant to Section 9(4)(1) to (3) WiEReG concerning the legal entity (name of the legal entity and address details, registration number and register number of the legal entity, legal form, and information on the period of existence of the legal entity), the information pursuant to Section 9(4)(5)(a) to (c) WiEReG concerning direct beneficial owners, and the information pursuant to Section 9(4)(6)(a) to (c) WiEReG concerning all indirect beneficial owners (first and last name, date of birth, and nationality in each case), as well as the country of residence in each case.

… Since the triggering effect of the decision of October 7, 2025, G62/2025, extends to the present appeal, Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part I 97/2023 does not apply in this appeal.

According to the amended legal situation, persons with a legitimate interest have the right to inspect the following data: With regard to the nature and extent of the economic interest, Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the WiEReG requires that the extract include information on whether this interest is conveyed through an equity stake, membership in management, the exercise of a function, or the exercise of control. For information on equity investments that must be made accessible pursuant to Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), it must be stated whether the nature and extent of the economic interest is based on an equity investment. However, this only applies if the direct or indirect beneficial owner exercises sufficient influence (Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 lit. a in conjunction with Section 2 Item 1 lit. a WiEReG). For information on membership in the management level, membership in the top management level must be disclosed (Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 lit. b in conjunction with Section 2 Item 1 lit. b WiEReG). For information on the exercise of a function, in the case of trusts, the settlor(s)/trustor(s), trustee(s), protector(s), or beneficiaries of the trust must be disclosed (Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 lit. c in conjunction with Section 2 Item 2 lit. a to d WiEReG). In the case of private foundations, the founders, the beneficiaries of the foundation, the members of the foundation board (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. c in conjunction with §2 no. 3 lit. sublit. a to cc WiEReG), in the case of foundations and funds, the founders, the members of the foundation or fund board or the circle of beneficiaries (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. c in conjunction with §2 no. 3 lit. b sublit. a to cc WiEReG). For information on whether control is conferred, a shareholding of 50% or more is required (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 1 lit. a WiEReG). In the case of trusts (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 2 lit. a WiEReG), private foundations (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 3 lit. a sublit. d WiEReG), foundations and funds (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 2 lit. b sublit. d WiEReG), any other natural person who ultimately controls the designated legal entity in any other way is disclosed. According to the amended legal situation, persons with a legitimate interest have the right to inspect the following data: With regard to the nature and extent of the economic interest, §10 para. 1 no. 2 WiEReG requires that the extract include information on whether this interest is conferred through an equity stake, membership in management, the exercise of a function, or the exercise of control. For information on equity investments that must be made available pursuant to Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), it must be stated whether the nature and extent of the economic interest is based on an equity investment. However, this only applies if the direct or indirect beneficial owner exercises sufficient influence (Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 lit. a in conjunction with Section 2 Item 1 lit. a WiEReG). For information on membership in the management level, membership in the top management level must be disclosed (Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 lit. b in conjunction with Section 2 Item 1 lit. b WiEReG). For information on the exercise of a function, in the case of trusts, the settlor(s)/trustor(s), trustee(s), protector(s), or beneficiaries of the trust must be disclosed (Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 2 lit. c in conjunction with Section 2 Item 2 lit. a to d WiEReG). In the case of private foundations, the founders, the beneficiaries of the foundation, the members of the foundation board (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. c in conjunction with §2 no. 3 lit. sublit. a to cc WiEReG), in the case of foundations and funds, the founders, the members of the foundation or fund board or the beneficiary group (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. c in conjunction with §2 no. 3 lit. b sublit. a to cc WiEReG). For information on whether control is transferred, a shareholding of 50% must be present (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 1 lit. a WiEReG); in the case of trusts (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 2 lit. e WiEReG), private foundations (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 3 lit. a sublit. d WiEReG), foundations and funds (§10 para. 1 no. 2 lit. d in conjunction with §2 no. 2 lit. b sublit. d WiEReG), any other natural person who ultimately controls the designated legal entity in any other way becomes known.

In the event of an appeal, persons with a legitimate interest will not be granted access to the following data in accordance with the amended legal situation: the NACE code for the main activities of the legal entity, insofar as this was determined pursuant to Section 21 of the Federal Statistics Act 2000 (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 4 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)), the place of birth, the place of residence and information on whether a beneficial owner has died (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 5 Letters d to 1g and Item 5 Letters d to 1g WiEReG), the date of the last notification and information on whether an exemption from the notification obligation pursuant to Section 6 WiEReG applies (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7 WiEReG), information on whether the beneficial owners were identified and verified by a professional representative (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7a WiEReG), information on whether a valid compliance package for the legal entity can be viewed (Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 7b WiEReG), if the beneficial owners were identified pursuant to Section 2 Item 1 Letter b WiEReG, information on whether, after exhausting all possibilities, the beneficial owners have been identified. The following information must be provided: Owners could not be identified and verified (§9 para. 4 item 7c WiEReG); whether relevant trusts exist pursuant to §5 para. 1 item 3a WiEReG (§9 para. 4 item 7e WiEReG); the fact that a valid entry exists pursuant to §11 para. 4 and §13 para. 3 WiEReG (§9 para. 4 item 8 WiEReG); whether and from which source the data was obtained from Statistics Austria; and, in the case of reported data, a statement that the data was reported by the legal entity (§9 para. 4 item 9 WiEReG); and a statement that no guarantee can be given for the accuracy and completeness of the data (§9 para. 4 item 10 WiEReG).

The following information must be provided: Furthermore, in the event of a complaint, persons with a legitimate interest will not have access to the following data included in Section 9 Paragraph 5 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG): a presentation of all known levels of ownership (Section 9 Paragraph 5 Item 1 WiEReG), the data pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 4 Item 5 Letters a to d and g WiEReG concerning the authorized representatives of the legal entity, insofar as this data is stored (Section 9 Paragraph 5 Item 2 WiEReG), information on whether and from which source the data was obtained from Statistics Austria, and a statement that the presentation is automated (Section 9 Paragraph 5 Item 3 WiEReG), as well as information on whether the extended extract is complete (Section 9 Paragraph 5 Item 4 WiEReG).

In addition, access to the uploaded compliance package (Section 5a WiEReG) and the data stored therein (Section 9 Paragraph 5a WiEReG), as well as the historical data mentioned in Section 9 Paragraph 3 WiEReG, is also denied.

Furthermore, access to the uploaded compliance package (Section 5a WiEReG) and the data stored therein (Section 9 Paragraph 5a WiEReG) is also denied. 2. The Constitutional Court finds that the constitutional concerns raised by the complainant against Section 2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraphs 1a to 1c, Section 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1 and 3, Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) are unfounded:

2.1. The complainant considers Section 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 10a of the WiEReG to be unconstitutional because the legislature, in particular with regard to the obligation stipulated therein to collect, store, and publish the place of birth and residential address of beneficial owners, has violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in conjunction with Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG), as well as Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The infringement of the right to data protection through the disclosure of sensitive register data to third parties is serious because not only are economic relationships revealed, but inferences can also be drawn about financial circumstances, family structures, and private life. This increases the risk for affected individuals of becoming victims of targeted surveillance or other criminal offenses. Combined with the broad access rights under Sections 9 and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), this results in excessive intrusion into sensitive areas of individuals’ lives. Furthermore, the accumulation of data collections mandated by Sections 7 and 8 of the WiEReG constitutes a disproportionate infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed right to data protection (Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG)). 2.1. The complainant considers Section 5 Paragraph 1 Item 1 in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 10a of the WiEReG to be unconstitutional because the legislature, particularly with regard to the obligation to collect, store, and publish the place of birth and residential address of beneficial owners, has violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in conjunction with Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG), as well as Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The infringement of the right to data protection through the disclosure of sensitive register data to third parties is serious because not only are economic relationships revealed, but inferences can also be drawn about financial circumstances, family structures, and private lives. This increases the risk for affected individuals of becoming victims of targeted surveillance or other criminal offenses. In conjunction with the broad access rights under Sections 9 and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), this results in excessive insight into sensitive areas of individuals’ lives. Furthermore, the accumulation of data collections mandated in Sections 7 and 8 of the WiEReG constitutes a disproportionate infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed right to data protection (Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act).

2.1.2. The Constitutional Court states the following regarding the standard for reviewing the constitutionality of the precedent-setting provisions:

Federal constitutional law contains, alongside Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an independent fundamental right to data protection. The constitutional provision of Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) grants every natural and legal person the right to confidentiality of their personal data, insofar as there is a legitimate interest in such confidentiality (Section 1, Paragraph 1 DSG). Section 1, Paragraph 2 DSG contains a substantive legal reservation, according to which, apart from the use of personal data in the vital interests of the data subject or with their consent, restrictions on the right to confidentiality are only permissible to protect overriding legitimate interests of another party, and in the case of interventions by a state authority, only on the basis of laws that are necessary for the reasons stated in Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

[Section 1, Paragraph 2 DSG] contains a substantive reservation of law, according to which, apart from the use of personal data in the vital interests of the data subject or with their consent, restrictions on the right to confidentiality are only permissible to protect overriding legitimate interests of another party, and in the case of interventions by a state authority, only on the basis of laws that are necessary for the reasons stated in Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

[Section 1, Paragraph 2 DSG] For the legal basis, Section 1 Paragraph 2 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) requires, going beyond Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that the use of data that is particularly sensitive by its nature may only be permitted for the purposes of safeguarding important public interests and that, at the same time, appropriate safeguards for the protection of the data subjects’ privacy interests must be legally established (see VfSlg 19.892/2014; VfGH 5 December 2023, G265/2023).

For the legal basis, Section 1 Paragraph 2 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) requires, going beyond Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the ECHR, that the use of data that is particularly sensitive by its nature may only be permitted for the purposes of safeguarding important public interests and that, at the same time, appropriate safeguards for the protection of the data subjects’ privacy interests must be legally established (see VfSlg 19.892/2014; VfGH 5 December 2023, G265/2023). Furthermore, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) can serve as a benchmark for reviewing the constitutionality of provisions deemed unconstitutional:

According to the established case law beginning with VfSlg 19.632/2012, the rights guaranteed by the CFR can be invoked before the Constitutional Court as constitutionally guaranteed rights pursuant to Article 144 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) and constitute a standard of review in general judicial review proceedings, in particular under Articles 139 and 140 of the B-VG (for the reasoning, see VfSlg 19.632/2012 and 19.865/2014). This means that the Constitutional Court – if necessary after obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU – applies the rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) within their scope of application (Article 51(1) CFR) as a standard for national law and repeals conflicting regulations or statutes pursuant to Articles 139 and 140 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) (see VfSlg 19.632/2012). In this respect, the rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as constitutionally guaranteed rights and thus a standard of review for the Constitutional Court, entail more extensive legal consequences than those afforded to them under EU law due to the principle of primacy of application, because of the legal consequences provided for in particular in Articles 139 and 140 B-VG. The Constitutional Court already pointed out in VfSlg 19.632/2012 that it thereby also fulfills the obligation to rectify the situation in this area as postulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to the now established case law beginning with VfSlg 19.632/2012, the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be asserted before the Constitutional Court as constitutionally guaranteed rights pursuant to Article 144 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) and constitute a standard of review in proceedings for general judicial review of norms, in particular pursuant to Articles 139 and 140 of the B-VG (for the reasoning, see VfSlg 19.632/2012 and 19.865/2014). This means that the Constitutional Court – if necessary after obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU – applies the rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) within their scope of application (Article 51(1) CFR) as a standard for national law and repeals conflicting regulations or statutes pursuant to Articles 139 and 140 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) (see VfSlg 19.632/2012). In this respect, the rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as constitutionally guaranteed rights and thus a standard of review for the Constitutional Court, entail more extensive legal consequences if the Constitutional Court concludes in a review of a regulation or statute that it is unconstitutional, due to the legal consequences provided for in particular in Articles 139 and 140 B-VG. These consequences extend beyond those afforded to them under EU law by virtue of the primacy of application. The Constitutional Court already pointed out in VfSlg 19.632/2012 that it is thereby also complying with the obligation to rectify the situation in this area as postulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

As rights guaranteed by constitutional law (within the meaning of Article 44, paragraph 1 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law), rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) thus form the standard of review for the Constitutional Court in judicial review proceedings, particularly under Article 140 of the CFR. This means that the Constitutional Court declares (ordinary) statutory provisions that violate a right under the Charter of Fundamental Rights unconstitutional. However, the Constitutional Court is prohibited from reviewing constitutional provisions against the standard of rights guaranteed by constitutional law; this also applies to rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights as constitutionally guaranteed rights within the meaning of the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence described above. As guarantees that, in their formulation and definiteness, are equivalent to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the Austrian Federal Constitution, and thus do not exhibit a completely different normative structure, the rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) are treated in judicial review proceedings as constitutionally guaranteed rights in the same way as those of the Austrian Federal Constitution (VfSlg 19.632/2012, 20.291/2018).

Legal regulations enacted to implement a directive constitute, in any case, a case of the implementation of EU law (VfSlg 19.632/2012; VfGH 5 December 2023, G265/2023).

. … When the legislature, in exercising its discretion in implementing Union law, creates regulations that affect not only a fundamental right of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) but also another constitutionally guaranteed right, the Constitutional Court decides on the basis of that right if it has the same scope of application as the law of the Charter (VfSlg 19.632/2012) and if the limits for permissible interference by the legislature with the constitutionally guaranteed rights are narrower or at least no wider than in the corresponding rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This applies to both Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (see, e.g., VfSlg 19.892/2014; VfGH 5 December 2023, G265/2023): If the legislature, in exercising its discretion in implementing EU law, creates regulations that affect not only a fundamental right under the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) but also another constitutionally guaranteed right, the Constitutional Court decides on the basis of that right, provided it has the same scope of application as the law under the Charter (VfSlg 19.632/2012) and if the limits for permissible legislative interference with constitutionally guaranteed rights are narrower or at least no broader than those of the corresponding rights under the Charter. This applies to both Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) and Article 8 of the ECHR (see, e.g., VfSlg 19.892/2014). Constitutional Court (VfGH) 5 December 2023, G265/2023):

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) governs the interpretation of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) in such a way that, according to the Explanatory Notes to Article 7 CFR, it “corresponds” to it and consequently has the “same meaning and scope” as the latter (Article 52(3) CFR; see VfSlg 19.892/2014 with further references).

Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) contains a substantive statutory reservation that sets narrower limits on interference with the fundamental right than Article 8(2) ECHR. Apart from the use of personal data in the vital interests of the data subject or with their consent, restrictions on the right to confidentiality are only permissible to protect overriding legitimate interests of another party, and in the case of interventions by a state authority, only on the basis of laws that are necessary for the reasons stated in Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

For the legal basis, Section 1(2) of the Data Protection Act (DSG) requires, going beyond Article 8(2) ECHR, that the use of data that is particularly sensitive by its nature may only be provided for to protect important public interests and that, at the same time, appropriate safeguards for the protection of the data subjects’ confidentiality interests must be legally established. Finally, this provision explicitly stipulates that even in the case of permissible restrictions, the interference with the fundamental right may only be carried out in the least intrusive manner necessary to achieve the objective.

According to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, this regulation implies that a stricter standard must be applied to the proportionality of the interference with the fundamental right to data protection under Section 1 of the Data Protection Act than that already established by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (e.g., VfSlg 16.369/2001, 18.643/2008, 19.892/2014, 20.356/2019). This level of protection remains unaffected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) even in those cases where the legislature has discretion in implementing EU law (cf. Article 53 CFR). Against this background, the provisions of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act, which have been deemed unconstitutional, must be assessed against the standards of federal constitutional law, including Section 1 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, this regulation implies that a stricter standard must be applied to the proportionality of the interference with the fundamental right to data protection under Section 1 DSG than that already established by Article 8 ECHR (e.g., VfSlg 16.369/2001, 18.643/2008, 19.892/2014, 20.356/2019). This level of protection remains unaffected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) even in those cases where the legislature has discretion in implementing EU law (see Article 53 CFR). Against this background, the provisions of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act that have been deemed unconstitutional must be assessed against the standards of federal constitutional law, including Section 1 of the Data Protection Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2.1.3. In this context, the Constitutional Court cannot find that the regulatory content of the provisions of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act, which it considers unconstitutional, is entirely mandated by EU law:

According to the established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (VfSlg 15.106/1998, 15.204/1998, 15.683/1999, 20.209/2016, 20.656/2023), an Austrian law implementing a provision of EU law is subject to two legal conditions: The legislature remains bound by constitutional requirements in the implementation of EU law insofar as these requirements do not prevent the implementation of EU law. In these cases, the legislature is thus bound by both EU law and Austrian constitutional law (see, e.g., Holoubek, Double Binding and Directive Implementation, ZÖR 2018, 663). According to the established case law of the Constitutional Court (VfSlg 15.106/1998, 15.204/1998, 15.683/1999, 20.209/2016, 20.656/2023), an Austrian law implementing a provision of EU law is subject to two legal conditions: The legislature remains bound by constitutional requirements in the implementation of EU law insofar as these requirements do not prevent the implementation of EU law. In these cases, the legislature is thus bound by both EU law and Austrian constitutional law (see, for example, Holoubek, Double Binding and Directive Implementation, ZÖR 2018, 663).

With regard to the EU law requirements of the relevant version of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the Constitutional Court assumes that the legislature has at least some discretion in the provisions deemed unconstitutional by the complainant: According to Article 30(5), subparagraphs 1 and 2, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, persons with a legitimate interest must at least have access to the name, month and year of birth, nationality, and country of residence of the beneficial owner, as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest. However, the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive do not contain a minimum list of information that must be stored in the register with regard to beneficial owners (Explanatory Notes to Bill 1160, Annex to the National Council Proceedings, 25th Legislative Period, p. 8). Whether the transmission of the residential address to the registration authority (§5 para. 1 item 1 lit. e WiEReG) or the disclosure of this date to obliged entities (persons with a legitimate interest have no right to inspect this date; see §10 para. 1 item 1 WiEReG and point 1.2.5.) complies with constitutional requirements is therefore subject to review by the Constitutional Court. Legislative discretion also exists with regard to the information on the maintenance of the register of beneficial owners (§7 WiEReG) and the commissioning of the Federal Computing Centre GmbH and Statistics Austria with the establishment, operation, and further development of the register (§8 WiEReG). With regard to the EU law requirements of the relevant version of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the Constitutional Court assumes that the legislature has at least some discretion with respect to the provisions deemed unconstitutional by the complainant: According to Art. 30 para. 5 subpara. Articles 1 and 2 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, stipulate that persons with a legitimate interest must at least have access to the name, month and year of birth, nationality, and country of residence of the beneficial owner, as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest. However, the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive do not contain a minimum list of information to be stored in the register with regard to beneficial owners (Explanatory Notes to Government Bill 1160, Annex to the National Council Proceedings, 25th Legislative Period, p. 8). Whether the transmission of the residential address to the registration authority (Section 5(1)(1)(e) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEREG)) or the disclosure of this date to obliged entities (persons with a legitimate interest have no right to inspect this date; see Section 10(1)(1) WiEREG and point 1.2.5) complies with constitutional requirements is therefore subject to review by the Constitutional Court. There is also legislative discretion regarding the information on the management of the register of beneficial owners (§7 WiEReG) and regarding the commissioning of the Federal Computing Centre GmbH and Statistics Austria with the establishment, operation and further development of the register (§8 WiEReG).

2.1.4. Insofar as the complainant objects that his residential address and place of birth are made accessible to third parties upon request (Section 5(1)(1)(c) and (e) in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)) and that this violates his constitutionally guaranteed rights, it must be pointed out, firstly, that the residential address of a beneficial owner is not disclosed to persons with a legitimate interest pursuant to Section 10 of the WiEReG (see point 1.2.5.3). Secondly, the Anti-Money Laundering Directive already provides that persons with a legitimate interest are entitled, among other things, to at least access to the beneficial owner’s date of birth (Article 30(5), first and second subparagraphs, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). 2.1.4. Insofar as the complainant objects that his residential address and place of birth are made available to third parties upon request (Section 5(1)(1)(c) and (e) in conjunction with Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG)) and that this violates his constitutionally guaranteed rights, it must be pointed out, firstly, that the residential address of a beneficial owner is not disclosed to persons with a legitimate interest pursuant to Section 10 of the WiEReG (see point 1.2.5.3). Secondly, the Anti-Money Laundering Directive already stipulates that persons with a legitimate interest are entitled, among other things, to access at least the beneficial owner’s date of birth (Article 30(5), first and second subparagraphs, of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive).

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court cannot find that the reporting of the legally required information to Statistics Austria, as the data processor for the registration authority, disproportionately restricts the constitutionally guaranteed rights of beneficial owners. Reporting this data (residential address and place of birth) is necessary to ensure the unambiguous identification (e.g., in the case of identical names) of the beneficial owners (Article 1(1) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive; Article 30(1) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). Those professional groups subject to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regulations in their customer relationships are to be supported by the possibility of accessing the register pursuant to Section 9 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG). In particular, this is intended to facilitate and expedite the “Know Your Customer” (KYC) and anti-money laundering checks of obliged entities. If a disclosure block has been obtained pursuant to Section 18(2) of the Austrian Registration Act (MeldeG), the residence cannot be viewed via the register of beneficial owners. In this case, the extract is limited, pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 4 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), to stating that the residence is in Austria and indicating that a disclosure restriction is in place. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court cannot find that the reporting of the legally required information to Statistics Austria, as the data processor for the registration authority, disproportionately restricts the constitutionally guaranteed rights of beneficial owners. Reporting this data (residential address and place of birth) is necessary to ensure the unambiguous identification (e.g., in cases of identical names) of the beneficial owners (Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive; Article 30 Paragraph 1 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). Those professional groups who are subject to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regulations in their customer relationships are to be supported by the possibility of inspecting the register pursuant to Section 9 of the WiEReG. In particular, this is intended to make “Know Your Customer” (KYC) and “Anti-Money Laundering” (AML) checks easier and faster for obligated entities. If a disclosure block has been obtained pursuant to Section 18 Paragraph 2 of the Registration Act (MeldeG), the beneficial owner’s residence is also not accessible via the register of beneficial owners. In this case, the extract is limited, pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 4 of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), to stating that the residence is in Austria and indicating that a disclosure block exists.

2.1.5. Regarding the constitutional concerns raised by the complainant against Sections 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), it should be noted that the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of October 7, 2025, G62/2025, affirmed the constitutionality of Section 10 of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023, with the exception of paragraph 1, item 1, and Section 10a of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023. The Constitutional Court essentially based its decision on the fact that the restriction of the right of access under Section 10 of the WiEReG to the data specified in paragraph 1, item 1, of the aforementioned Act constituted a disproportionate restriction of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislator, in Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023, did not create a proportionate balance of interests between the confidentiality interests of legal entities and their beneficial owners (Section 1 of the Data Protection Act in conjunction with Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the one hand, and the right to information of the group of persons protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the other. Accordingly, the complainant’s argument that the right of access for persons with a legitimate interest pursuant to Section 10 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 97/2023 is too far-reaching cannot be accepted in light of the aforementioned ruling of the Constitutional Court of October 7, 2025, G62/2025. 2.1.5. Regarding the constitutional concerns raised by the complainant concerning Sections 10 and 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), it should be noted that the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of October 7, 2025, G62/2025, affirmed the constitutionality of Section 10 of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023, with the exception of paragraph 1, item 1, and Section 10a of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023. The Constitutional Court essentially based its decision on the grounds that the restriction of the right of access under Section 10 of the WiEReG to the data specified in paragraph 1, item 1, of the aforementioned Act constituted a disproportionate restriction of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislator, in Section 10 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023, did not create a proportionate balance of interests between the confidentiality interests of legal entities and their beneficial owners (Section 1 of the Data Protection Act in conjunction with Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the one hand, and the right to information of the group of persons protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the other. Accordingly, the complainant’s argument that the right of access for persons with a legitimate interest under Section 10 of the WiEReG as amended by Federal Law Gazette Part One, 97 of 2023, is too far-reaching cannot be accepted in light of the aforementioned ruling of the Constitutional Court of October 7, 2025, G62/2025.

2.1.6. Insofar as the complainant argues that the aggregation of data collections from numerous sources pursuant to Sections 7 and 8 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), including the commercial register, the register of associations, the residents’ registration office, and the register of foundations and funds, is unconstitutional, it must be pointed out that this high level of data quality is necessary to achieve the objectives of maintaining the register, namely the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.

2.2. The complainant further argues that the mandatory recording, i.e., the legally mandated attribution of (co-)founders of private foundations and members of the foundation’s board of directors to the actual power structures pursuant to Section 2, Paragraph 3, Letters 1a and 2c of the WiEReG, is discriminatory, especially since personal data of natural persons are permanently recorded and processed even if they no longer have actual control or influence over the legal entity and a functional connection to the purpose of the register no longer exists. Section 2, paragraph 3, letter a, sub-letter bb of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) also includes in the register of beneficial owners those persons whose beneficiary status has not materialized and whose legal relationship to the foundation is neither current nor concrete. The systematic equation of such a potential beneficiary with a beneficial owner within the meaning of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act fundamentally misunderstands the function of the register. The reporting obligation of the potential group of beneficiaries pursuant to Section 2, paragraph 3, letter a, sub-letter bb in conjunction with Section 5, paragraph 1, letter 3 of the WiEReG is discriminatory. 2.2. The appellant further argues that the mandatory recording, i.e., the legally mandated attribution of (co-)founders of private foundations and members of the foundation’s board of directors to the actual power dynamics pursuant to Section 2, Paragraph 3, Letters sublitaa and sublitcc of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), is discriminatory, particularly since personal data of natural persons are permanently recorded and processed even when they no longer have actual control or influence over the legal entity and a functional connection to the purpose of the register no longer exists. Section 2, Paragraph 3, Letter sublitbb of the WiEReG also includes in the register of beneficial owners those persons whose beneficiary status has not materialized and whose legal relationship to the foundation is neither current nor concrete. The systematic equation of such a potential beneficiary with a beneficial owner within the meaning of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act fundamentally misunderstands the function of the register. The reporting obligation of potential beneficiaries pursuant to Section 2(3)(a)(b) in conjunction with Section 5(1)(3) of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) is unconstitutional.

2.2.1. Section 2 of the WiEReG implemented Article 3(6) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. During implementation, the definition of beneficial owner was clarified and supplemented within the scope of the national legislature’s discretion (Explanatory Notes to Government Bill 1160, Annex to the National Council Proceedings, 25th Legislative Period, pp. 4 ff.). Section 2(3) of the WiEReG explicitly specifies which persons must be identified as beneficial owners of private foundations pursuant to Section 1(1) of the Austrian Private Foundations Act (PSG). The beneficial owners are accordingly the founders (§2 para. 3 lit. sublitaa), certain beneficiaries (§2 para. 3 lit. sublitbb), the members of the foundation’s board of directors (§2 para. 3 lit. sublitcc), and any other natural person who ultimately controls the private foundation in another way (§2 para. 3 lit. sublitdd). The disclosure of the specific function performed by the beneficial owner in private foundations (§5 para. 1 lit. d WiEReG) is also not required by EU law. 2.2.1. Section 2 of the WiEReG implements Article 3 para. 6 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. During implementation, the definition of beneficial owner was clarified and supplemented within the scope of the national legislator’s discretion (Explanatory Notes to Government Bill 1160, Annex to the National Council Proceedings, 25th Legislative Period, pp. 4 ff.). Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) explicitly lists the persons to be identified as beneficial owners of private foundations pursuant to Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Austrian Private Foundations Act (PSG). Accordingly, beneficial owners include the founders (Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph a), certain beneficiaries (Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph bb), the members of the foundation’s board of directors (Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph cc), and any other natural person who ultimately controls the private foundation in another way (Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph dd). The disclosure of the specific function performed by the beneficial owner in private foundations (Section 5, paragraph 1, paragraph 3, letter d of the WiEReG) is also not required by EU law.

2.2.2. The Constitutional Court cannot find that Section 2 Paragraph 3 lita sublitaa to sublitcc of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in conjunction with Section 5 Paragraph 1 No. 3 of the WiEReG violates the principle of equality (Article 7 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law, Article 2 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law). The Constitutional Court cannot find that Section 2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraphs 1a to 1cc of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) in conjunction with Section 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the WiEReG violates the principle of equality (Article 7 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law, Article 2 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law):

The principle of equality requires the legislature to treat equals equally and unequals unequally and sets substantive limits on it insofar as it prohibits creating differentiations between the addressees of the law that are not objectively justifiable (see VfSlg 17.315/2004, 17.500/2005, 20.244/2018, 20.270/2018). Within these limits, the principle of equality does not constitutionally prevent the legislature from pursuing its political objectives in the manner it deems appropriate (see, for example, VfSlg 16.176/2001, 16.504/2002). The principle of equality requires the legislature to treat equals equally and unequals unequally and, insofar as it prohibits the creation of objectively unjustifiable differentiations between the addressees of the law (compare VfSlg 17.315/2004, 17.500/2005, 20.244/2018, 20.270/2018). Within these limits, the principle of equality does not constitutionally prevent the legislature from pursuing its political objectives in the manner it deems appropriate (see, for example, VfSlg 16.176/2001, 16.504/2002).

Founders (§2 para. 3 lita sublitaa WiEReG) and members of the foundation’s board of directors (§2 para. 3 lita sublitcc WiEReG) are treated ex lege as beneficial owners of the private foundation, irrespective of their actual ability to exert influence. Beneficiary status (§2 para. 3 lita sublitbb WiEReG) can arise from the designation in the foundation deed or in the supplementary foundation deed, from a determination by a body appointed by the founder, or from a determination by the foundation’s board of directors. Furthermore, a list of beneficiaries must be reported if the persons intended to receive grants are defined abstractly or arise from the purpose of the foundation, and the persons concerned only acquire beneficiary status through a determination by a body appointed by the founder (§5 PSG) (§2 Z3 lita sublitbb). If persons within the list of beneficiaries receive only one-time grants from the private foundation, the value of which exceeds €2,000 in a calendar year, they are considered beneficiaries in that calendar year.

From a constitutional perspective, there is no objection to the legislator’s assumption that, based on their decision to establish and dedicate the foundation, the founder is considered the beneficial owner even if they are not granted any actual rights of control or influence. This approach ensures that those entitled to access the foundation’s records can trace who created and endowed it. In this regard, it should be recalled that the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of October 7, 2025, G62/2025, expressly held that access to historical data (§9 para. 3 WiEREG) can also be of public interest and contribute to public opinion formation. Furthermore, it is within the legislature’s discretion to include all natural persons as beneficiaries in order to effectively combat money laundering and terrorist financing, regardless of whether these persons have actually received any funds from the private foundation. Moreover, from a constitutional perspective, there is no objection to the legislature assuming that members of the foundation’s board of directors generally exercise joint control over the private foundation (§17 para. 3 PSG) and that, accordingly, each individual member of the board of directors is treated ex lege as the beneficial owner of a private foundation in this context.

2.3. According to the Constitutional Court, the provisions of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act (§2 item 3 lita sublitaa to cc, §5 para. 1 items 1 and 3, §7, §8, §9, §10, §10a WiEReG), which the complainant considers unconstitutional, are, contrary to the complainant’s arguments, open to interpretation. With the challenged provisions, the legislature, in a manner consistent with the principle of legal certainty under Article 18 para. 1 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), stipulated that founders, certain beneficiaries, and members of the foundation’s board of directors are to be treated as beneficial owners (§2 item 3 lita sublitaa to cc WiEReG), which information the legal entities must report to the registration authority regarding their beneficial owners (§5 para. 1 items 1 and 3 WiEReG), and under which conditions the registration authority must maintain the register (§7 WiEReG). Finally, the legislator sufficiently stipulates that the Federal Minister of Finance must commission Statistics Austria and the Federal Computing Center GmbH with the establishment, including the creation of the necessary connections, operation, and further development of the register (§8 WiEReG).

3. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has no concerns that the provisions in Article 30 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives, and Article 3(6) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, might violate Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. As the Court of Justice of the European Union held in its judgment of 22 November 2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al., paragraphs 58 et seq., the EU legislature, by providing access to information on beneficial owners for certain groups of persons to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by creating an environment that is less easily exploited for these purposes through increased transparency, pursues an objective in the public interest which can also justify serious interferences with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Constitutional Court finds no indication that the means employed in the Anti-Money Laundering Directive to pursue these objectives have been implemented in a manner contrary to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To limit interference with the right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, public access to beneficial owner information held in central registers has been made subject to proof of a legitimate interest (Article 30(5) of the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Recital 40 of the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). Furthermore, with the aim of ensuring a proportionate and balanced approach and safeguarding the right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, Member States should provide for exceptions to the obligation to disclose beneficial owner personal information in central registers and to access such information in exceptional cases where disclosure would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, harassment, violence, or intimidation (Recital 52 of the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). Moreover, the Constitutional Court has no concerns that the provisions in Article 30 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives, and Article 3(6) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, might infringe Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. As the Court of Justice of the European Union held in its judgment of 22 November 2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM et al., paragraphs 58 et seq., the EU legislature, by providing access to information on beneficial owners for certain groups of persons to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by creating an environment that is less easily exploited for these purposes through increased transparency, pursues an objective in the public interest that can justify even serious interference with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Constitutional Court finds no evidence that the means employed in the Anti-Money Laundering Directive to pursue its objectives have been implemented in a manner contrary to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To limit interference with the right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, public access to information on beneficial owners stored in central registers has been made subject to proof of a legitimate interest (Article 30(5) of the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Recital 40 of the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). Furthermore, in order to ensure a proportionate and balanced approach and to safeguard the right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, Member States should provide for exceptions to the obligation to disclose personal information on beneficial owners in central registers and to the right to access such information in exceptional cases where the disclosure of such information would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, harassment, violence, or intimidation (Recital 52, Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive).

(Recital 52, Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive)

(Recital 52, Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive) The Constitutional Court finds no indication that the provisions of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), enacted in implementation of Article 30 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (as amended by the Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives) and Article 3(6) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive), could violate Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR).

The Constitutional Court finds no indication that the provisions of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG), enacted in implementation of Article 30 of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (as amended by the Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives) and Article 3(6) of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive), could violate Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). 4. The Federal Administrative Court also found no errors in the application of the relevant legal provisions that would infringe the constitution:

The Federal Administrative Court logically concludes that the appellant’s application to restrict access to the register pursuant to Section 10a of the Austrian Beneficial Ownership Register Act (WiEReG) should not be granted. The appellant is registered in the commercial register as a member of the board of directors of the specified private foundation. The appellant’s data as beneficial owner is therefore already available in the public commercial register. Since the appellant’s data and financial circumstances are evident from the commercial register for all legal entities, the appellant lacks a legitimate interest. Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate that access to his data would expose him to a disproportionate risk.

From a constitutional perspective, the Federal Administrative Court’s decision to dispense with an oral hearing pursuant to Section 24, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGVG) is not objectionable, especially since the Federal Administrative Court only had to clarify legal questions and (moreover) the appellant, according to the Federal Administrative Court’s findings, waived such a hearing.

IV. Conclusion IV. Conclusion

1. The alleged violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights therefore did not occur.

The proceedings also did not reveal that the appellant was violated in any constitutionally guaranteed rights he did not assert. Given the soundness of the legal bases applied, it is also impossible that his rights were violated due to the application of an unlawful general norm.

IV. Conclusion 2. The appeal is therefore dismissed as unfounded and, pursuant to Article 144(3) of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), referred to the Administrative Court as requested (for the system of referral of appeals to the Administrative Court by the Constitutional Court after the entry into force of the 2012 Administrative Court Jurisdiction Amendment Act, see VfSlg 19.867/2014).

3. This decision could be made without an oral hearing in a non-public session pursuant to Section 19(4) of the Austrian Constitutional Court Act (VfGG).
</pre>

Member States discuss national civil society strategy implementation

TB – 10037/2025