Beneficiaries and information rights: what beneficiaries can really demand

The information limb concerns fulfilment of the foundation purpose. A beneficiary may therefore seek to understand the measures taken to implement that purpose. In a family foundation, this may concern the criteria applied to distributions, treatment of an intended group or implementation of an education benefit.

The inspection limb covers the annual financial statements, management report, audit report, books, foundation deed and supplemental deed. This reaches beyond the publicly accessible company register record. The supplemental deed and books may be particularly important for understanding beneficiary status and distribution practice.

Under section 18 PSG, the management report must also address fulfilment of the foundation purpose. Information and accounting therefore work together. The figures show assets and transactions; the purpose report explains how the board relates them to the foundation’s governing framework.

Section 30 does not create a general owner’s access right. It is a statutory right of a beneficiary. The first issue is therefore whether the person is named in the declaration or was validly identified as a beneficiary under section 5. Mere membership of a potentially eligible family group does not by itself resolve that status question.

Section 5 distinguishes a beneficiary named in the foundation declaration from a person identified by an office appointed for that purpose. If no such office exists, the statute assigns identification to the foundation board.

Names are often absent from the publicly available deed and instead appear in the supplemental deed or result from defined criteria. The relevant version of the documents, identification resolutions and communications to the person should then be read together.

A dispute about status should not be mixed with a dispute about the amount of information. A person who can evidence beneficiary status should do so briefly in the first request. If status itself is unresolved, the foundation’s identification rules need review before competing document lists are exchanged.

The information right does not depend on a distribution having been made during the current year. Beneficiary status under the PSG is decisive. Whether a separately enforceable claim to a particular distribution exists is another question governed by the foundation declaration.

A structured request identifies the foundation, the beneficiary status relied on and the section 30 entitlement. Questions about purpose fulfilment should be stated separately. The inspection request should identify the categories of records and relevant accounting periods.

Financial statements, management reports and audit reports can be organised by financial year. For books and entries, it helps to explain the connection with the purpose, a distribution or a particular transaction. This supports orderly access and later shows which parts were answered.

The practical format should also be addressed. Depending on volume, inspection may take place through an organised digital data room, copies or an appointment. Section 30 establishes the entitlement; implementation should combine confidentiality, completeness and a reliable record of what was made available.

The correspondence belongs in a chronology, including the request, proof of delivery, replies, proposed appointments, files supplied and remaining gaps. This allows the statutory reasonable response period to be assessed from the actual process without inventing a fixed number of days.

If the private foundation does not comply within a reasonable period, section 30(2) allows the beneficiary to apply to the competent court. The court may order inspection and, where appropriate, arrange it through an accounting expert.

The application should present beneficiary status, the original request, the foundation’s response and the access still outstanding. A comparison of requested and supplied material is more useful than a general allegation that transparency is missing.

Section 30(2) applies sections 385 to 389 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure by analogy. The procedure should therefore not be described with an imprecise generic label. The legal core is the statutory application and the specific inspection to be ordered.

Information under section 30 must also be distinguished from a special audit under section 31. A special audit is a separate court examination with a different group of applicants and different conditions. Special audit under the PSG explains that distinction.

Status is left unresolved: extensive records are requested without identifying how the person became a beneficiary.

Information and inspection are merged: the request asks for “everything” without distinguishing questions from documents.

The response remains general: the board refers to confidentiality or existing reports without addressing the statutory record categories.

Partial replies are not reconciled: files circulate repeatedly while no clear list identifies what remains missing.

Different remedies are combined: information, inspection, special audit and a claim to distribution are treated as one demand although they have different conditions.