Private foundation audit report: inspection, confidentiality and court application

Section 30(1) PSG lists six document groups that a beneficiary may request to inspect: annual accounts, management report, audit report, books, foundation deed and supplementary foundation deed. The beneficiary may also request information about fulfilment of the foundation purpose. The audit report is therefore an independent part of the statutory right. The request does not have to reach it through a general appeal for transparency.

The report belongs to the statutory annual-audit framework. Under section 21 PSG, the foundation auditor examines the annual accounts, including the books, and the management report within three months of submission. The rules on the audit report and the auditor’s opinion apply by reference to company law. The audit report must be submitted to the other organs of the private foundation.

This classification determines the practical scope of the request. A beneficiary can identify the report for a particular financial year and add questions about fulfilment of the foundation purpose. The request should show whether complete inspection, a copy or clarification of particular findings is sought.

Section 5 PSG defines a beneficiary as the person designated as such in the foundation deed. If no person is designated there, the beneficiary is the person determined by the body appointed for that purpose or, otherwise, by the foundation board. The status must therefore be assessed from the relevant deed version and any determination resolutions.

Family connection or an expectation of a later distribution does not replace this examination. The inspection right under section 30 PSG also does not depend on a payment having been made in the financial year concerned. The information right and a possible claim to a particular distribution belong to separate review steps.

The request should include a short description of the beneficiary status. If the status follows from a determination, the determination, its communication and the underlying rule should be kept together. Where status itself is disputed, that preliminary issue should be recorded separately.

A useful request identifies the private foundation, the requester’s beneficiary status, section 30 PSG and the requested audit report. It should state the financial year, the requested form of inspection and a practical way to respond. If several years are needed, each year and report should be listed separately.

The request may connect the report to the information interest. It can explain that findings about fulfilment of the purpose, a particular asset movement or a distribution decision need to be understood. That context makes processing easier without turning an additional explanation into a condition that replaces the statutory document right.

The receipt of the request matters for later assessment. Delivery evidence, email confirmation, the response, offered inspection dates and supplied files belong in one chronology. If the response is partial, a remaining-items list should show which reports or pages are still missing. This keeps the scope reviewable after several exchanges.

Section 30 PSG expressly names the audit report as an inspection item. The form of access may still require a case-specific assessment where the report contains third-party personal data, trade secrets or information about ongoing business relationships. These interests do not automatically answer whether the report falls within the statutory right.

The foundation should therefore assess the report in a focused way. An organised inspection, separation of annexes, a reasoned redaction or partial disclosure may be possible. A general reference to confidentiality leaves open which passage is withheld and why. The beneficiary should identify the finding or period relevant to the beneficiary’s legal position.

The assessment must not turn the statutory right into a general duty of secrecy. Section 21(2) PSG expressly provides that the foundation auditor has no duty of confidentiality towards other foundation organs and persons entrusted with audit tasks in the foundation deed. The beneficiary’s route is governed separately by section 30 PSG. The document, status and procedural context remain decisive for implementation.

A response addresses the request only when it makes the identified audit report accessible or explains the outstanding issue in a comprehensible way. Mentioning the auditor’s opinion does not automatically replace inspection of the audit report. Supplying the annual accounts alone is likewise not a complete response where the audit report was expressly requested.

For a partial response, record the files by financial year, document type and completeness. If the report is missing, clarify whether the foundation refuses disclosure, offers inspection or has failed to identify the requested year. This distinction matters for further correspondence and a possible application to the court.

The response period must also be assessed against the actual request. Section 30(2) PSG does not prescribe a fixed number of days. What is reasonable may depend on the number of years, the preparation required and the foundation’s response to questions. A short remaining-items list can often clarify the open issue more efficiently than a new and broader request.

If the private foundation does not comply with the request within a reasonable time, the beneficiary may apply to the court under section 30(2) PSG for an order allowing inspection. Where appropriate, the court may arrange inspection through an accounting expert. Sections 385 to 389 ZPO apply by reference to the procedure.

The application should set out the beneficiary status, receipt of the request, the identified audit report, the foundation’s response and the inspection that remains outstanding. The file should show whether the report is entirely missing, whether individual parts are withheld or whether an offered inspection has not been put into effect.

The application should remain focused on inspection under section 30 PSG. Where the beneficiary also alleges dishonesty or serious breaches of the law or foundation deed, the requirements for a special audit under section 31 PSG must be considered. The facts may overlap, but the statutory bases differ.

Status is unsupported: A person requests the audit report without explaining the basis of the beneficiary status. The foundation and later the court then have to resolve the preliminary status issue first.

The document is unclear: “All audit records” can cover different documents and years. Identifying the audit report by financial year creates a clearer starting point.

Information and special audit are merged: Inspection of one report is expanded into an investigation of every foundation transaction. A different statutory instrument may govern that aim.

Partial responses are not recorded: Without a list of supplied and missing items, the remaining dispute cannot be identified reliably.

Confidentiality is stated generally: A broad confidentiality statement does not explain the treatment of the specific report or individual restrictions.