# What changed: access to the UBO register after the Court of Justice ruling
Access to the Dutch UBO register changed after a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union removed the basis for unrestricted public search of beneficial-ownership data. Under the applicable Dutch rules, a person now has to show a legitimate interest for certain categories before they can search. Filing duties for entities are unaffected. This page sets out what moved, who has to act, and what is still open.
Why this arises for a Dutch structure
The UBO register sits inside the trade register kept by the Kamer van Koophandel (KVK, the Dutch Chamber of Commerce). Anyone working through corporate law and governance in the Netherlands has treated it as a first stop for tracing who ultimately owns or controls a Dutch entity: a counterparty in due diligence, a lender checking a borrower's ownership chain, a claimant preparing to serve process. That first stop still exists. What it gives an unconditional searcher, and what a filer still has to disclose, are now two different questions.
The register was built to satisfy an EU anti-money-laundering framework, and general public access was one implementation choice among several the framework allowed. The ruling did not abolish the register. It removed the argument that open, unconditional public access was itself required by EU law, and pushed member states back onto their own domestic balancing of transparency against a person's interest in not having their financial position searchable by anyone.
What changed, in mechanical terms
Before the ruling, a person could search a defined set of UBO data fields without stating why. After it, under the applicable Dutch rules, that unconditional route to certain data no longer holds: a requester has to demonstrate a legitimate interest connected to preventing money laundering, terrorist financing or related predicate offences before that category of access is granted. Journalists, competent authorities and bodies with an anti-money-laundering supervisory role continue to have access, treated as holding that interest by the nature of their function.
Three things did not change. The obligation on a Dutch entity, and on a foreign entity with the relevant Dutch nexus, to file UBO data with the trade register continues under the applicable rules. The entity's own extract of its own filing remains available to it. And a refusal to grant a requested access can still be brought before a Dutch court, which reviews whether the stated interest meets the applicable threshold, though what that threshold requires in practice is still being worked out case by case.
Why this is a tracked change, not a settled one
This page sits on the changes axis and is tracked rather than closed. The criteria for a legitimate interest are set at a general level, and how registries and courts apply them in individual requests is still developing. A structure report or a counterparty check that relied on open search now needs a documented basis for the request, and that basis itself may be scrutinised. Treat any account of "who counts as having an interest" that you read elsewhere as provisional until you have checked the current position directly with the register.
What to check before you rely on the register
Confirm, for your own situation, whether your reason for searching falls within the legitimate-interest categories the register currently applies, and keep a written record of that reason. Separately, confirm whether the entity you are researching has a live filing at all: a foreign entity with Dutch activity may have its own filing duty under a different route (see beneficial ownership filings for foreign entities with Dutch activity, /corporate/changes/beneficial-ownership-filings-for-foreign-entities-with-dutch-activity/). Where the entity in question has recently changed hands, check whether that change triggered a fresh filing obligation of its own (filing obligations after a change of control, /transactions/changes/filing-obligations-after-a-change-of-control/). None of this restores the pre-ruling position; it establishes whether you fall inside the current one.
Before and after
| Aspect | Before the ruling | Position now |
|---|---|---|
| Search by a person with no stated interest | Permitted for defined data fields | No longer permitted; a legitimate interest must be shown, under the applicable Dutch rules |
| Journalists, supervisory authorities | Access alongside the general public | Continued access, treated as holding the required interest |
| Filing duty on the entity | Applies | Unaffected, applies as before |
| Entity's own extract of its own filing | Available to the filer | Available to the filer, unaffected |
| Refusal of a request | No general refusal route, since access was open | Reviewable before a Dutch court |
What this does not cover
- Does not cover the UBO or beneficial-ownership register of any jurisdiction other than the Netherlands, beyond the cross-reference given above.
- Does not cover trust and similar-arrangement registers, which sit under a separate regime.
- Does not cover the consequences, criminal or administrative, of a missed or incorrect filing.
- Does not state a date on which the change took effect, or the case reference of the ruling: neither is confirmed to the standard this page requires, and both should be checked against the current official position before you rely on them.
- Does not cover the position of a listed company, which follows separate transparency rules.
Questions
Has the UBO register been closed to the public?
No. It has not closed. What changed is that unconditional public search of certain data fields no longer applies; a requester now has to show a legitimate interest under the applicable Dutch rules before that category of data is disclosed to them.
Do foreign entities with Dutch activity still have to file UBO data?
Yes. The filing duty on the entity is unaffected by this change. What moved is who may search the register and on what basis, not who must appear in it.
Who wrote this
Eva Kuipers advises on governance disputes and on proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber. Her work here covers how ownership and control of a Dutch structure are documented, and what happens when access to that documentation is disputed or restricted.
Where you need to see how a Dutch structure's ownership is currently documented across the registers that remain accessible, and on what basis, a structure report sets out what is held and what is not, as at the date it is run. For governance and disclosure obligations under Dutch corporate law more broadly, see the corporate practice. The equivalent question for an ownership chain running through Austria is addressed separately in the structure report for an Austrian beneficial owner, and the position of a director whose accounts were filed late while bank financing was in place is addressed in the annual accounts were filed late on your watch, bank financing.
Last legal review: 2026-09-15