# What changed: trade register data and privacy shielding
Under the applicable rules, the Dutch trade register (Handelsregister) no longer shows a director's or shareholder's private residential address by default on a standard extract; only a correspondence address is shown. Anyone whose registration still lists a home address should file a correspondence address with the Chamber of Commerce (KVK); until that filing is made, the home address stays visible on paid extracts to any requester.
Why this changes now
Public registers across the Netherlands have been under sustained pressure to limit exposure of private data attached to a business role. The same pressure produced the restriction on public access to the UBO register that followed the Court of Justice ruling on that register, described separately on this site. The trade register sits under a different legal basis and a different authority, but the direction is the same: business identity stays public, private residence does not. This is one line in a broader pattern of corporate law and governance disclosure being narrowed at the point where it touches a natural person rather than the entity itself, in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the EU.
The mechanics in short
A KVK registration carries two address fields for a natural person acting as director, sole proprietor or shareholder with a filed interest: the correspondence address, always shown, and the residential address, historically shown unless shielding had been separately requested. The position has moved toward residential addresses not being shown to a general requester by default, with the correspondence address carrying the disclosure burden instead.
Shielding does not remove the residential address from the register. It removes it from what a standard extract shows to a member of the public. Certain categories of requester, including bailiffs acting under a writ and specified public authorities, can still obtain the residential address through a separate, logged request. The register keeps a record of who obtained what, and why.
Where a company has never filed a correspondence address distinct from the residential address, the two may still be the same value on record; shielding a field that has never been populated with an alternative does not create a new address, it only limits who can see the one that exists.
The pattern this page tracks
This page belongs to a tracked set of corporate law and governance changes maintained for readers who deal with a Dutch corporate law and governance question from outside the Netherlands and need to know what moved, not the full legislative history behind it. The trade register is one of several Dutch disclosure points under review at the same time; the UBO register access rules and the shift toward public country-by-country tax disclosure requirements both move in a comparable direction, narrowing what a general requester sees while keeping the underlying record intact for a qualifying request.
The Netherlands is not an outlier in this respect. How director data is shown on a public filing varies by jurisdiction; the pattern in France, for instance, shows a different balance between what a standard extract discloses about directors and officers and what requires a separate application. A reader tracking a Dutch counterparty across borders should expect the visible fields to differ by register, not assume the Dutch position generalises.
What to check now
Pull your own KVK extract and compare the address field shown against what you know to be the correct correspondence address on file. If a director's or shareholder's home address still appears, file the correction with KVK directly; there is no fee-based shortcut and no third party can file it on your behalf without a mandate.
If you rely on a counterparty's registered address for service of process or notice under a contract, check whether that address is now the shielded correspondence address rather than a residential one. A notice sent to an address the register no longer treats as the operative one can raise a dispute over valid service if the matter ever reaches a Dutch court.
Before and after
| Element | Position before | Position now |
|---|---|---|
| Residential address on standard extract | Shown by default unless separately shielded | Not shown by default; correspondence address shown instead |
| Correspondence address | Optional, filed separately if the person chose to | Carries the disclosure burden; filing one is the practical step to take |
| Access by bailiffs and specified authorities | Available on request | Unchanged, available on a logged request |
| Underlying record held by KVK | Residential address retained on file | Retained on file, not removed by shielding |
What this does not cover
- The UBO register, which is a separate register with its own access rules, covered on the linked page.
- Any date on which a specific rule change took effect: no date is confirmed in the registry for this entry, so none is stated.
- Shielding rules for a registered address of the entity itself, as distinct from a natural person connected to it.
- Address disclosure in registers outside the Netherlands, including the French comparison above, which follows its own rules.
- Any procedure for contesting a KVK filing that has already been made; that is a separate administrative step.
Questions
Does shielding remove my address from the Dutch trade register entirely?
No. Shielding limits what a standard public extract shows. The residential address stays on file and remains available to bailiffs acting under a writ and to specified public authorities through a separate, logged request.
Who has to act, and is there a deadline?
Anyone whose current KVK filing still shows a residential address where a correspondence address would now be shown by default should file the correspondence address. Under the applicable rules, no confirmed deadline attaches to this step; delay simply leaves the residential address visible on extracts in the meantime.
Eva Kuipers, governance and the Enterprise Chamber. She works on disclosure obligations, board conduct and the procedural routes available to shareholders and stakeholders inside Dutch corporate structures.
This entry sits within our corporate governance practice coverage. Where an address discrepancy points to a wider pattern, such as a parent that instructed a decision that harmed creditors close to insolvency, that is a governance question rather than a register question, and is treated separately. A structure report sets out what is currently on file for a Dutch entity, including registered addresses, as they stand on the day the report is run.
Last legal review: 2026-09-15