OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Bundesnotarkammer

BNotK

Der Aufgabenbereich der Bundesnotarkammer umfasst gem.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

21 Jan 2026 · Exchange of views on the 28th regime and digital company law: - forthcoming initiative - digitalised notarial procedures - opportunities for notaries in the Single Market

Response to 28th regime – a single harmonized set of rules for innovative companies throughout the EU

30 Sept 2025

Bundesnotarkammer welcomes and supports the European Commissions initiatives to strengthen the competitiveness of the European Union. However, with regard to a potential 28th regime, early-stage consultations showed that company law is not the problem child of European businesses. The main hurdles lie in the access to capital and skilled labour, excessive bureaucracy and burdensome administrative procedures like reporting and notification obligations, also in fragmented tax and insolvency law. An additional 28th legal company form alone will not be a gamechanger for European businesses as it does not resolve the legal fragmentation in areas of law with more potential for increasing the competitiveness of the European Union. European company law has made enormous progress in the last years. Thanks to the Digitalisation Directives I and II, a digital European company law is no longer a hope for the future but already reality. In Germany, for example, the entire life cycle of a company can be handled digitally at the request of the parties, while maintaining the highest levels of transparency, reliability and legal certainty. A potential new European company form within a 28th regime should build upon the success story that is the existing acquis in EU company law. Public preventive control by courts, authorities and/or notaries ensures reliable registers as the basis for transparency and mutual trust in company data. The result, legal certainty, is a major locational advantage: Reliable registers, securing tax revenue, protection of employee and co-determination rights are important factors for the competitiveness of the European Union, and they are Europes unique selling points in the global competition. Finally, without an effective public preventive control, also the effet utile of the recent anti-money laundering package would be at risk. New provisions should focus on continuous evolution of European company law and an efficient use of existing resources. Avoiding the setup from scratch of costly, additional, parallel structures is the way to decreasing bureaucracy instead of creating new bureaucracy. Additional simplifications could be achieved through digital tools (e.g. EUDI Wallet, EU Business Wallet), the further reduction of language barriers and a more effective use of the European Business Register Interconnection System (BRIS). The notarys central role in company law as a one-stop-shop could be further expanded in order to facilitate the overall formation experience for entrepreneurs also in cross-border cases. For example, a comprehensive one-off collection of company data by the notary as a central point of contact for the further distribution of the relevant data to administrative and fiscal authorities could serve as a real efficiency booster by realising the once-only principle. The company law system of Delaware, which is often referred to in the public discussion, however, is an unsuitable blueprint for Europe. This is for several reasons: First, overall transactional costs in the US are higher than in continental European legal systems, because their systems need to compensate for not having reliable commercial registers. There are annual fees, taxes, significant costs for certificates of good standing and legal due diligence, some needed prior to every transaction or business activity. The absence of reliable registers further leads to increased risks and costs of legal disputes and litigation. In fact, the popularity of Delaware companies relies only partly on corporate law, but rather on specialised jurisdiction and attractive tax models. This success comes at a price: Systemic lack of transparency and legal certainty. Without public preventive control and reliable registers, a potential EU Inc. could easily become an "Autocracy Inc.". A more detailed position paper of Bundesnotarkammer is attached.
Read full response

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund and

25 Sept 2025 · Lunch Debate '28. Regime'

Meeting with Evelyn Regner (Member of the European Parliament) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and

25 Sept 2025 · Debate 28th Regime

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Deutscher Steuerberaterverband e.V.

23 Sept 2025 · 28. Regime

Meeting with Andreas Schwab (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Jul 2025 · 28. Regime

Meeting with Alexandra Jour-Schroeder (Deputy Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

11 Jul 2025 · Markus Sikora wanted to introduce himself as new President of the German Federal Chamber of Notaries and wanted to explain his concerns regarding certain requirements of the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

Meeting with Dominique Thienpont (Acting Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

30 Jun 2025 · The opportunity to exchange views and discuss how the German notariat could best support AMLA's success.

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament) and LANXESS AG

3 Sept 2024 · Digital files

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

22 Nov 2023 · Harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

13 Apr 2023 · Harmonising certains aspects of insolvency law in the EU

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Apr 2022 · eIDAS Verordnung

Meeting with Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken / Dutch Banking Association

20 Apr 2022 · AMLR

Meeting with Katarina Barley (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Jan 2022 · Exchange of views

Meeting with Ralf Seekatz (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Prepaid Verband Deutschland e. V.

11 Jan 2022 · Geldwäschebekämpfung

Response to Update of the Reform Recommendations for regulation in professional services

31 Mar 2021

The German Federal Chamber of Notaries (Bundesnotarkammer; BNotK) represents the interests of the German notaries. It is following with great interest the planned roadmap of DG GROW with regard to an update of the reform recommendations for regulation in professional services. The roadmap also contains an initiative which aims to include, for the first time, notaries in the European “restrictiveness indicator for regulated professions” (Restrictiveness Indicator). The Bundesnotarkammer is firmly opposed to the inclusion of the profession of “notary” in the Restrictiveness Indicator. The envisaged inclusion of notaries in the Restrictiveness Indicator serves the political aim of a future deregulation of the notary profession. 1. However, this political aim contradicts applicable EU law, which explicitly excludes notaries from the scope of application of all legal acts relevant to the service sector (such as the Services Directive, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Proportionality Test Directive). The deregulation efforts also contradict established case-law of the European Court of Justice, which explicitly recognizes the regulation of the notary profession by the Member States as being compatible with EU law in the cases “Commission v. Germany”, C-54/08, and “Piringer”, C-342/15. 2. The argument to align the European Restrictiveness Indicator with the PMR index of the OECD is flawed in several respects. The two indicators are not comparable in terms of content. Moreover, DG GROW conceals the fact that the PMR index contains an explicit reservation with regard to the specific public function of the notariat. The lack of comparability of both indicators with regard to the notary profession is also explicitly confirmed in a study for the IMCO Committee of the European Parliament dated 2017. 3. The initiative is in clear contradiction with the will of the Member States. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain, have already strongly opposed the initiative. DG GROW cannot simply disregard the criticism which has been resolutely put forward by such a large number of Member States. 4. The aim of DG GROW to deregulate the profession of notary interferes with the judicial sovereignty of the Member States in a manner contrary to EU law. Notaries are an integral part of the system of preventive administration of justice and are not comparable to the other liberal professions listed in the Restrictiveness Indicator. They exercise a public office which is assigned to the judiciary. However, the decision as to whether judicial tasks are delegated to public office holders such as notaries is the sole responsibility of the Member States. If every form of indirect state administration were to fall under the deregulation competence of DG GROW, this form of delegation of tasks would no longer be available to the Member States in the future. 5. Furthermore, the deregulation of the notary profession would have severe consequences for the preventive administration of justice in the EU Member States. Notaries are an essential factor for societal stability. Their involvement in proceedings creates legal certainty, which is essential, especially in times of crisis. Given the fact that the internal market relevance of the notary profession is not recognizable and the considerable importance of the latter for the fulfilment of fundamental functions in the legal system, the Bundesnotarkammer considers any deregulation attempt to be also politically misguided, particularly in the light of the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Please find the detailed Feedback Statement of the Bundesnotarkammer on DG GROW’s roadmap in the attached PDF.
Read full response

Response to Report on the Application of the eIDAS Regulation

25 Oct 2019

Die durch die eIDAS-VO vorgegebenen Sicherheitsniveaus bei den elektronischen Identifizierungsmitteln (eID) eignen sich nur bedingt für eine Anwendung im hoheitlichen Bereich der Mitgliedsstaaten. Insbesondere kann nach aktueller Rechtslage die unerlaubte Weitergabe einer eID (in Deutschland z.B. Unionsbürgerkarte und PIN) nicht entdeckt werden. Das steht im hoheitlichen Bereich einer Einbindung von eID oftmals entgegen, da ein Handeln unter falscher Identität nicht sicher ausgeschlossen werden kann. Gelöst werden könnte dieses Problem durch Aufnahme eines weiteren Sicherheitsniveaus in Artikel 8 (z.B. hoch+), bei dem zwingend durch den Abgleich eines biometrischen Lichtbilds im Rahmen einer Videokonferenz ein deutlich erhöhtes Sicherheitslevel erreicht werden könnte. Dadurch hätte die eID-Technik zukünftig im öffentlichen Sektor einen deutlich breiteren Anwendungsbereich, da die nationalen Behörden auch in sensiblen Bereichen ggf. auf ein persönliches Erscheinen des Bürgers verzichten könnten. Bei den Sicherheitsniveaus elektronischer Identifizierungssysteme sollte klargestellt werden, dass zur (erstmaligen) Identitätsüberprüfung einer Person auch das „Vier-Augen-Prinzip“ angewendet werden kann. So sollten beispielsweise Vertrauensdiensteanbieter schon kraft Gesetzes verlangen dürfen, dass der Antragssteller sein Ausweisdokument vor der Prüfung durch den Vertrauensdiensteanbieter einer weiteren, unabhängigen Stelle vorlegen muss. Es wäre daher wünschenswert, wenn die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2015/1502 vom 8. September 2015 zur Festlegung von Mindestanforderungen an technische Spezifikationen und Verfahren für Sicherheitsniveaus elektronischer Identifizierungsmittel gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 3 der eIDAS-VO hierzu Vorgaben aufstellen dürfte. Die Einhaltung der sicherheitsrelevanten Vorgaben der eIDAS-VO (nebst Durchführungsbestimmungen) im Bereich der qualifizierten elektronischen Signatur (qeS) ist leider im europäischen Vergleich sehr unterschiedlich ausgeprägt. So sind nationale Lösungen am Markt, bei denen die Identifikation des Unterzeichners durch den jeweiligen qualifizierten Vertrauensdiensteanbieter wenig zuverlässig ist und damit einem Missbrauch wenig entgegengesetzt wird. Da solche Lösungen vergleichsweise günstig am Markt platziert werden, ist ein Verdrängungswettbewerb und damit ein „race to the bottom“ zu befürchten, was die qeS mittelfristig insgesamt diskreditieren könnte. Es wäre daher wünschenswert, wenn die Kommission zum einen die Anforderungen an die einzelnen Sicherheitsniveaus schärfen und zum anderen die nationalen Aufsichtsstellen enger kontrollieren würde.
Read full response

Meeting with David Boublil (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

16 Oct 2017 · Meeting to discuss digitalisation of company law, tax evasion and money laundering.

Meeting with Renate Nikolay (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

25 Feb 2015 · Single Member Company