Austria: Do Legal Entities Have a ‘Private Life’?
Austria: Do Legal Entities Have a ‘Private Life’?
The Austrian Supreme Court on Restrictions on Access to the Land Register (Section 6b, GUG)
The land register is basically an open book—anyone can peek in to see who’s buying or selling property, all in the name of keeping things legal and transparent. Individuals seeking to acquire, encumber, or rely on real estate are required to consult the register for accurate information. Nevertheless, as of 2024, Section 6b of the Austrian Land Register Computerisation Act (Grundbuchumstellungsgesetz, hereinafter GUG) introduced an exception allowing certain documents to be excluded from public inspection upon request. In its ruling dated May 19, 2026 (5 Ob 121/25t), the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) has now provided clear guidance on which parties are eligible to invoke this protective clause and those who are not.
Background: How Section 6b of the Austrian GUG Came About
Section 6b did not originate as an independent legislative measure; rather, it was enacted in direct response to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in Liebscher v. Austria (6 April 2021, 5434/17). In its decision, the ECHR criticised the practice of recording divorce settlement agreements—which must be submitted in full and encompass provisions related to custody, child support, and the division of property—in the public land registry. The Court found this practice to be inconsistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private life.
As a response, Section 6b of the GUG was passed by the Austrian legislature, allowing documents to be kept from public view, upon request, if they contain information about private or family life as outlined in Article 8 of the ECHR. Since this rule is an exception to the standard requirement for public access, the OGH has made it clear that it should be interpreted strictly.
The Case at Hand: A Public-Law Entity Seeking to Protect Contractual Information
A public-law corporation had executed a cooperation agreement, which served as the foundation for a real estate purchase contract and was subsequently submitted to the land registry. The cooperation agreement included financially sensitive provisions such as funding arrangements, cost-efficiency initiatives, reporting requirements, and rights of review and approval reserved for the contracting party.
The public-law entity formally requested that specific contractual provisions be excluded from public disclosure, contending that legal entities possess a ‘private life’ in economic and commercial matters which merit protection encompassed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
OGH Key Findings
1. Non-contentious Proceedings, Excluding Land Registry Proceedings
A motion for access restriction under Section 6b of the GUG is to be adjudicated within non-contentious proceedings, rather than through land registry proceedings.
2. Article 8 of the ECHR as the Primary Standard and Applied Through Rigorous Interpretation
Section 6b of the GUG stipulates that data must pertain to private or family life within the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR. As this constitutes an exception to the general principle of land registry transparency, the provision should be interpreted restrictively. Applicants seeking access limitations are required to substantiate that the information falls within the core area of private life protected by Article 8 of the ECHR.
3. Business Data Is Typically Not Considered Private Data
The OGH has determined that grant agreements, cost-saving measures, reporting obligations, and supervisory rights are not considered to relate to private or family life. Consequently, these elements are excluded from the scope of protection afforded by Section 6b of the GUG.
4. Key Question Deliberately Left Unresolved
Given that the existence of relevant data was previously denied, the OGH explicitly refrained from determining whether legal entities are encompassed within the personal scope of protection under Section 6b of the GUG. As a result, this issue is still open and awaits resolution in upcoming cases.
Digression: The IFG Does Not Interfere with Land Registry Law
The OGH has also provided clarification that any potential claim to confidentiality under Section 6(1)(6) of the Austrian IFG (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz, Information Access Law) providing ‘protection from significant economic harm’ is not applicable. The IFG does not pertain to the land register, as it is a special public register; Section 16 of the IFG explicitly excludes its application.
Implications for Contract Drafting
The ruling directly affects how contracts should be drafted in real estate transactions. Parties submitting contracts with financially sensitive content as part of a collection of deeds should anticipate that such information may be fully disclosed, particularly when it concerns legal entities or public-law corporations.
Best Practices for Drafting:
- Keep the land registry deed separate from related agreements. The purchase agreement, along with any cooperation, subsidy, or easement provisions, should be documented independently. Only the principal contract should be submitted as the basic registration document.
- Section 6b of the GUG is applicable solely to natural persons possessing authentic personal data, as this regulation is primarily intended for matters concerning individuals’ data, rather than business interests.
Conclusion
In Case No. 5 Ob 121/25t, the OGH delineated a clear framework: Section 6b of the GUG primarily safeguards the private and family life of natural persons against the unintended disclosure of highly personal data within the land register. The Court indicated that the financial interests of legal entities are unlikely to fall under this protection. Notably, the OGH did not resolve whether Section 6b of the GUG is applicable to legal entities. The IFG does not offer another means of protection in this situation.
The fundamental principle of public disclosure within the land register remains firmly upheld.
Legal practitioners who recognise this framework and proactively incorporate it into their contract drafting strategies can effectively safeguard sensitive provisions from public scrutiny. This is best achieved not by seeking to impose access restrictions retroactively, but by structuring legal documentation in a manner that anticipates and addresses potential disclosure issues from the outset.
Should you need assistance with contract drafting for real estate transactions or gathering essential documentation, our team is equipped to offer reliable and bespoke advice suited to your specific needs.
This article is for general information purposes only and is not a substitute for advice in individual cases.
