Decision [DEU] ¦ German Court Rejects Interim Relief in Transparency Register Dispute Over Stiftung Documents

Transparency register ruling clarifies limits on document requests in Germany

A German administrative court has dismissed an application for interim relief in a dispute centered on the Transparency Register and the extent of a company’s duties when an inconsistency notice is filed. The applicant, a German limited partnership, argued that it should not have to obtain and submit the charter and related documents of a foreign foundation in its ownership chain. The court disagreed, but it did so on procedural grounds: the application was found inadmissible because the company lacked a sufficient legal interest in the requested declaration.

The case is notable because it addresses several provisions of the German Anti-Money Laundering Act, known as the GwG, including sections on fines, information duties, and the procedure for handling inconsistency reports in the Transparency Register.

Background to the case

The applicant is a German Kommanditgesellschaft based in Munich. Its general partner is a German GmbH, and one of its indirect shareholders is a German holding company that is in turn 75% owned by a foundation based in Liechtenstein. After the Transparency Register authority raised an inconsistency notice, the company responded that no natural person could exercise controlling influence over the foundation because the foundation’s board consisted of three members acting by majority vote. On that basis, the applicant said it had reported a so-called fictitious beneficial owner instead.

The register authority then asked the applicant to submit the foundation’s articles of association, a certificate of representation, and a statement on the current board composition. The company refused, arguing that it had no legal basis or duty to obtain those documents from its indirect shareholders or to submit them to the authority. When the authority persisted, the company sought interim judicial protection and asked the court to declare that it was not obliged, at least for the time being, to obtain or submit those documents.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"The court’s decision narrows the scope of the German Transparency Register’s inconsistency procedure and underlines that not every request for documents creates an enforceable duty. In this case, the applicant was not exposed to a direct fine or coercive measure, so the court found no urgent need for interim relief.

For compliance teams, the decision is a reminder to separate the duty to collect beneficial ownership information from any broader demand for supporting documents. It also shows that legal precision matters in AML enforcement, especially when ownership structures involve foreign foundations or other complex holding layers."

Why the court rejected the application

The court held that the application was inadmissible because the applicant did not face an immediate legal disadvantage if it refused to comply. In particular, the court said that no fine and no coercive enforcement measure was currently threatened in a way that would justify a present need for judicial protection.

The court first addressed the company’s argument that it faced a so-called Damokles effect, meaning a looming sanction that creates a need for immediate judicial relief. The court found that the authority’s reference to the fine provisions of the GwG was not the same as an actual fine notice or a concrete threat of a fine.

No fine under the cited provisions

A central part of the reasoning concerned the three fine provisions the court analyzed.

The court held that section 56(1) sentence 1 no. 66 GwG did not apply because it sanctions only a “subject obliged under the Act” who fails to provide information or documents under section 23a(3) GwG. In the court’s view, the applicant was not such a subject obliged under the GwG. The court read the term consistently with the general definition in section 2(1) GwG and concluded that the provision is aimed at obliged entities, not at the company that is asked to provide documents in the inconsistency procedure. The court also relied on the legislative history, which states that the new fine rules are directed at obliged entities.

The court also rejected reliance on section 56(1) sentence 1 no. 54 GwG. That fine rule refers to a failure to provide information contrary to section 18(3) GwG. The court said section 18(3) concerns a different situation, namely clarification of incomplete or unclear initial filings, and does not cover the later inconsistency procedure under section 23a GwG. The court added that extending the provision to section 23a would go beyond the text and conflict with the requirement of legal certainty in fine law.

The third provision, section 56(1) no. 55 lit. a GwG, was also found not to apply. That rule punishes a failure to obtain information on beneficial owners contrary to section 20(1) GwG. The court accepted that companies must obtain beneficial ownership information, and that shareholders must provide the necessary details. But it drew a line between “information” and supporting documents. In its view, the statute requires the obtaining of data, not the collection of evidence such as a foundation’s charter. The court therefore saw no fine risk for the applicant’s refusal to obtain or produce the foundation documents.

The inconsistency procedure does not create a coercible duty here

The court then turned to section 23a(3) GwG, which allows the register authority to ask the reporter of an inconsistency, the affected association, or the legal arrangement for information and documents needed to clarify the inconsistency.

The court held that this request mechanism is not a formal administrative order and does not, by itself, establish an enforceable duty backed by administrative coercion. The letters sent by the authority did not look like administrative acts: they were not labeled as such, did not contain coercive warnings, and did not include a legal remedies notice.

The court also found no statutory basis for treating the request under section 23a(3) as an enforceable administrative act. In the court’s reading, the law provides a right to ask for clarification, not a power to issue a coercive order. The legislature chose a system that relies on reporting entities and companies to supply data and then sanctions non-compliance through the fines regime, rather than creating a separate investigative authority with broad coercive powers.

The applicant’s legal strategy failed on admissibility

The company had argued that it needed immediate court protection because otherwise it might have to resolve difficult legal questions in a possible fine procedure. The court did not accept that as enough. Since no direct fine threat or enforceable order was present, the company lacked the required interest in a declaration.

The court also noted that even if it were to declare provisionally that the company did not need to obtain or submit the foundation’s charter, that would not necessarily resolve the inconsistency notice itself. If the inconsistency remained unresolved, the Transparency Register procedure would not be considered closed, and no completion note would be entered in the register extract.

Practical implications

For compliance teams, the decision is important because it shows how narrowly at least one court reads the statutory duties around the Transparency Register inconsistency process. The court drew a clear distinction between a company’s duty to obtain beneficial ownership information and a broader demand for corporate documents from indirect owners or foreign foundations.

It also confirms that a request from the register authority does not automatically equal a binding administrative order. That matters because the existence of a coercible order can change the legal position dramatically, especially in disputes involving ongoing register procedures and possible sanctions.

At the same time, the decision should not be read as a general green light to ignore all requests from transparency authorities. The court’s ruling was based on the specific procedural posture and on its reading of the available fine provisions. Companies that face similar issues should assess carefully whether the facts differ, especially where the legal structure, the quality of the ownership chain, or the wording of an authority’s letter is not the same.

A broader compliance lesson

The case highlights a recurring issue in beneficial ownership compliance: where the law requires a company to obtain information, but the source of that information sits several layers above it and is organized under foreign law. In practice, this can create tension between statutory reporting duties and the actual ability to secure documents from indirect owners.

For financial crime and AML professionals, the message is that the German Transparency Register regime continues to raise questions at the boundary between information duty, evidence gathering, and enforcement. The court’s decision is a useful reminder that statutory wording matters, and that authorities cannot always stretch a clarification request into a coercive duty without a clearer legal basis.

Dive deeper

• openJur ¦ VG Köln, Beschluss vom 08.12.2025 - 1 L 2217/25 ¦ Link