A banker in Frankfurt, a journalist in Tallinn, and a lawyer in Nicosia may each provide different answers to the question of company ownership, reflecting varying degrees of transparency and effort required to obtain such information. Despite the European single market’s emphasis on common regulatory standards, business data accessibility remains inconsistent across member states. While some countries provide open access, others maintain strict controls, and recent years have seen significant changes in these practices.
The rationale for transparency in business data appeared to be well established. Company and ownership information are prioritized as high-value datasets under the European Union’s Open Data Directive. Access to such data underpins commercial trust, enabling suppliers to verify clients, banks to fulfill anti-money-laundering obligations, and journalists to investigate shell companies involved in procurement scandals. In this context, transparency is a fundamental component of a functional market.
Join The European Business Briefing
New subscribers this quarter are entered into a draw to win a Rolex Submariner. Join 40,000+ founders, investors and executives who read EBM every day.
Subscribe
Certain member states have fully adopted transparency measures. Estonia, for example, provides public access to company records, board members, shareholders, and annual financial reports through its e-Business Register, and its e-Residency program allows global entrepreneurs to participate in this transparent system. Similarly, Nordic countries have historically regarded company data as a public good. In these jurisdictions, openness is considered a source of national pride rather than a mere regulatory obligation.
Then came the reversal. However, this trend reversed in November 2022, when the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the requirement that member states provide public access to beneficial-ownership registers, citing concerns about privacy rights. The response was swift and varied: Cyprus closed public access, Greece suspended it, and the Netherlands imposed restrictions. Estonia, previously recognized for its openness, implemented a tiered access model, limiting general public access while permitting authorities, regulated businesses, and individuals with a legitimate interest, such as journalists, to view the data. As a result, a fragmented approach replaced the previous principle of openness. However, the new anti-money-laundering package tries to stitch the patchwork back together. From July 2026, member states must give people with a legitimate interest, and crucially journalists and civil society organizations working on financial crime, a presumed right of access rather than a case-by-case battle. It is a sensible correction, but it also concedes the deeper truth: Transparency in Europe is now a negotiated balance with privacy, not a default setting.
In this context, data aggregators have become increasingly important. Public registers are inherently fragmented, distributed among tax authorities, court registries, and procurement databases, each with distinct formats and update schedules. Consolidation is necessary to render this information practically usable. Both commercial entities and non-profit civic technology initiatives, such as Estonia’s nimistu, aggregate data from multiple public sources into unified, searchable profiles while maintaining traceability to original registers. Regardless of their operational model, aggregators transform legally available data into practical resources, and their effectiveness depends on the prevailing access regulations.
The significance of open company data is often underestimated. While such data may appear unremarkable, it becomes critical when revealing the assets of sanctioned individuals or undisclosed conflicts of interest among politicians. Over the past decade, Europe has advanced toward greater transparency, experienced a judicial reversal, and is now enacting more nuanced legislation to restore openness. Although the overall trajectory favors transparency, recent developments underscore that it remains an ongoing, deliberate policy choice rather than a completed objective.
