Countdown to EU Beneficial Ownership Reform: Test “Legitimate Interest” Access Ahead of AMLD6 Deadline

Across the European Union, authorities have been instructed to recognise a “legitimate interest” in accessing information on company ownership.

Yet, in practice, watchdog organisations continue to face refusals, delays and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in their efforts to obtain beneficial ownership data.

Last week, the European Commission announced the start of infringement proceedings against 11 Member States for failing to “fully notify” how they have transposed the initial set of requirements under the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6) regarding access to beneficial ownership information — including access for those with legitimate interest — by the 10 July 2025 deadline. These countries now have two months to comply and formally notify the Commission.

AMLD6 represents a pivotal development in EU anti-money laundering legislation. Following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling that abolished public access to beneficial ownership registers, AMLD6 introduced a framework based on legitimate interest.

The directive explicitly presumes legitimate interest for journalists, civil society, and academics whose work concerns anti-money laundering or related offences, mandating generalised rather than case-by-case access. Member States are required to fully transpose these operational rules by July 2026.

To assess current implementation, it was tested the practical application of legitimate interest access across 14 EU countries that have already introduced such systems. The findings highlight significant inconsistencies — many requests remained pending for weeks, while procedural complexity, fees, and language barriers were common obstacles.

Outright refusals in Ireland and Hungary. In Ireland, officials claimed the organisation’s request failed to establish links between the targeted companies and convicted individuals or assets in high-risk jurisdictions. In Hungary, authorities argued that legitimate interest was unsubstantiated, demanding proof of close ties — legal, ownership, business, or family — to the company in question. Although the Hungarian regulation lists these as examples, it does not restrict legitimate interest solely to such categories.

With less than a year before the July 2026 transposition deadline, the stages of the access process were outlined and the practical barriers encountered along the way.

Transition from Public to Legitimate Interest Access

The 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5), introduced in 2018, required Member States to make beneficial ownership registers publicly accessible, a move that delivered measurable transparency gains. However, the CJEU’s 2022 ruling overturned this requirement, citing privacy concerns. The Court did, however, affirm that civil society and media entities have a legitimate interest in accessing ownership data.

One year after the decision, Research revealed that nine countries had already implemented legitimate-interest systems. The number has since grown to 14, with Slovenia and Malta being the latest to adopt such frameworks. Yet, implementation approaches differ markedly between countries, particularly concerning the proof of legitimate interest.

In Hungary, applicants must submit documentary evidence demonstrating their interest in accessing ownership information or their role in fighting money laundering and terrorism financing. Hungary’s definition of legitimate interest includes, but is not limited to, legal, ownership, business, or family connections. Meanwhile, Ireland restricts access to entities linked to convicted persons or assets in high-risk countries.

Access procedures also vary. Only France and Spain provide general access to registers once legitimate interest is confirmed, while most other Member States evaluate requests individually. Finland and Lithuania offer both options, though general access requires a contractual agreement with the register authority.

Importantly, AMLD6 will eliminate the need for journalists and civil society actors to prove legitimate interest repeatedly. Once recognised, they will be able to directly search beneficial ownership registers, an essential step toward harmonising systems across the EU.

Step 1: Navigating the Request Process

Assessment found diverse procedures across the 14 countries. Belgium, Finland, Ireland, and Malta accept access requests via email, while others require online submissions through national portals. Most countries use electronic identification (eID) systems for user verification, but these systems often malfunction or exclude applicants from outside the EU.

For example, Italy’s eID was unavailable at the time of testing, and Spain’s eID was entirely non-functional.

Some countries, such as Germany and France, allow registration without eID, though France requires company-specific data like a SIREN number, limiting access to domestic entities.

Instructions for applicants also varied widely. Unclear or missing guidance in Ireland, Hungary, and Luxembourg, while Finland, France, and Sweden provided clear instructions. In Belgium, online directions did not match the actual process.

Language barriers were another persistent issue. Many portals lacked full English versions, and non-editable forms in national languages created significant difficulties. In Lithuania, for instance, an English contract was available only after completing two Lithuanian-language forms, translated with machine assistance.

Step 2: Submitting Documentation

All countries required proof of identity, with Finland and Lithuania requesting a power of attorney if the applicant lacked authority to represent their organisation. France accepted proof of employment instead, while Austria demanded the employment contract as a follow-up.

Authorities also requested documentation about the organisation itself — such as foundation papers, registry extracts, or details of the target legal entity. Moreover, applicants were required to justify their legitimate interest, though requirements varied. Austria, Belgium, and Finland accepted a general explanation, while Lithuania demanded a detailed “legitimate interest balance form” with over 20 questions.

In Ireland, the need to prove a connection to convicted persons or high-risk assets has sparked criticism from lawmakers, journalists, and civil society, who argue the standard exceeds CJEU guidance and unfairly blocks legitimate access.

Step 3: Paying the Fee

Out of the 14 countries studied, eight currently impose or plan to impose fees once access is granted. Germany charges the lowest at €1.65 per extract, while Finland’s fees range from €7 to €200 plus VAT for contracts, making it one of the most expensive. Access is free in Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Slovenia, and Sweden.

Step 4: Waiting for a Response

Only a few countries specify response timelines. Hungary allows up to 30 days, Finland 2–3 days, and Lithuania up to 20 days. In reality, the waiting times varied from immediate responses in Sweden and Ireland to four months in Hungary. Germany had not replied since March 2025, while Spain took nearly six months to process a Spain request.

Step 5: Receiving the Information

Where access was granted, registers generally provided basic data — the beneficial owner’s name, surname, date of birth, ownership interest, country of residence, and citizenship. However, none offered historical data, which will become mandatory under AMLD6 from July 2026.

Toward Harmonised Access

Emphasis that the misuse of EU companies and trusts to conceal illicit wealth underscores the importance of access for civil society, journalists, and academics.

AMLD6’s upcoming transposition will be key to establishing uniform rules, with the European Commission empowered to issue implementing acts detailing templates, request procedures, and recognition criteria for legitimate interest. The Commission also has the opportunity to eliminate burdensome requirements, such as mandatory powers of attorney, and to facilitate access for non-EU users by recognising alternative identification documents.

Member States, meanwhile, are urged to set fees that cover only administrative costs and to make basic register consultations free of charge. A recommendation that all forms and instructions be made available in English, and that authorities respect the new 12-working-day response timeline starting in 2026.

Ultimately, these reforms aim to ensure that those fighting corruption and money laundering — from journalists to non-profit investigators — can effectively access and use beneficial ownership data. 

By fLEXI tEAM