Competition Register: Making Compliance Visible – Self-Cleaning as a Strategic Opportunity

The German Competition Register (Wettbewerbsregister) makes corporate compliance more visible than ever. For companies listed in the register, an entry can have significant economic consequences: it may lead to mandatory or discretionary exclusion from public procurement procedures. Conversely, successful self-cleaning offers companies the opportunity to address misconduct in a sustainable manner, restore their integrity and have the register entry deleted ahead of time. For companies, this means that prevention is essential, and early legal assessment is indispensable in the event of an incident. As part of this process, an effective Compliance Management System (CMS) plays an important role by systematically linking prevention, investigation and structural remedial measures.

Current figures illustrate the operational significance of the register: approximately 22,700 listed companies, around 7,500 registered contracting authorities, 160 reporting authorities and approximately 1,100 queries per day make the Competition Register a highly frequented instrument. In 2025, applications for early deletion due to self-cleaning were granted in 21 cases – an indication of how demanding the requirements are. 

1. Purpose and Legal Framework

The purpose of the Competition Register is to strengthen integrity and transparency in public procurement procedures by making procurement-relevant grounds for exclusion centrally available. In particular, it records final criminal convictions and certain administrative fine decisions. Companies to which such infringements are attributable should, as a general rule, not benefit from public contracts. Public contracting authorities are thereby effectively protected from having to contract with unreliable companies. Through a single electronic query, the database enables public contracting authorities to check nationwide whether grounds for exclusion exist. The register therefore contributes to combating economic crime and increases transparency in public procurement procedures.

The legal basis is the Competition Register Act (Wettbewerbsregistergesetz – WRegG), which provides for the register to be maintained by the German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) and defines the rules on registration, queries and deletion. It is supplemented by the Competition Register Regulation (Wettbewerbsregisterverordnung – WRegV), which sets out organisational and technical details. In substantive terms, the WRegG refers to the exclusion grounds set out in Sections 123 and 124 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen – ARC). Registration takes place after the company concerned has been heard and irrespective of whether it is currently participating in a procurement procedure. However, an entry may significantly affect future procurement procedures and therefore have serious economic consequences for the company concerned.

2. Registration and Query Practice

Section 2 WRegG specifies which decisions must be entered in the register. In practice, companies are frequently listed as a result of decisions relating to antitrust infringements, breaches of social security or tax obligations, and corruption offences in commercial dealings.

However, registration does not amount to an automatic ban from public procurement procedures. Contracting authorities must still carry out an independent assessment of the company’s reliability. The decisive question is whether the registered circumstances concern serious misconduct that requires exclusion without leaving room for discretion, i.e. mandatory exclusion grounds under Section 123 ARC, or whether exclusion may be imposed at the contracting authority’s discretion, i.e. discretionary exclusion grounds under Section 124 ARC. The register entry as such is therefore initially an information tool, not a sanctioning instrument. In practice, however, the extensive query obligations of public contracting authorities give the register considerable importance. Public contracting authorities are currently required to query the register from an estimated contract value of EUR 30,000; from 1 July 2026, this threshold will increase to EUR 50,000. As a result, an entry regularly gives rise to exclusion considerations and, in many cases, already indicates that exclusion may follow.

3. Self-Cleaning as a Strategic Opportunity

A register entry does not necessarily mean exclusion from participation in public procurement procedures. First, an entry is made only for a limited period. Secondly, German procurement law provides a mechanism known as “self-cleaning”, which allows companies to restore their reliability ahead of time. The concept of self-cleaning originates from Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU. It requires Member States to provide mechanisms enabling companies to restore their integrity and participate in competition despite previous misconduct.

3.1. Automatic Deletion

Under Section 7 WRegG, entries are automatically deleted after three or five years, depending on the type of misconduct. Once deleted, the information may no longer be used for procurement review purposes.

3.2. Early Deletion Through Self-Cleaning

Early deletion through self-cleaning is the central mechanism for removing entries before the expiry of the statutory deletion periods. The procedure is governed by Section 8 WRegG and Section 10 WRegV. Companies must demonstrate a “legitimate interest” in deletion, typically an intention to participate in public procurement procedures, and must also prove that self-cleaning has been successfully carried out.

If this proof is successful, the entry is deleted. A positive decision is binding on all contracting authorities: the deleted misconduct may no longer be taken into account as a ground for exclusion under Section 7(2) sentence 1 WRegG. Conversely, a negative decision is not binding on contracting authorities under Section 7(2) sentence 2 WRegG. A company may therefore still attempt to demonstrate self-cleaning in an individual procurement procedure despite a negative decision by the register authority. However, the negative decision by the register authority is noted in the register; contracting authorities may retrieve it and inspect the complete documents under Section 8(4) sentences 4 and 5 WRegG.

The requirements for the application are guided by the relevant guidelines issued by the German Federal Cartel Office in its capacity as register authority. These guidelines specify which organisational, personnel-related and technical measures are suitable to prevent further misconduct.

3.3. Substantive Legal Requirements

Self-cleaning is anchored in two sets of provisions.

3.3.1. Correction of Taxes, Charges and Contributions – Section 123(4) Sentence 2 ARC

Companies must fully pay outstanding taxes, charges and contributions, including interest, late-payment surcharges and penalties, or make a binding commitment to do so.

3.3.2. General Procurement Law Self-Cleaning – Section 125 ARC

For all other registerable offences, self-cleaning comprises three mandatory elements. Successful self-cleaning requires compensation for damage, comprehensive clarification of the facts, and personnel-related, organisational and technical measures to prevent future infringements.

It is for the company to prove which self-cleaning measures it has implemented and that these measures are suitable to restore the integrity called into question by the specific infringement.

• Compensation for Damage or Binding Commitment to Compensation: The company must comprehensively compensate the damage caused. This applies in particular to “obvious” damage. Damage is generally considered obvious where the obligation to compensate has been finally established both as to its basis and amount.
• Active Cooperation in Clarifying the Circumstances Giving Rise to the Damage: The duty to cooperate requires conduct which, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the company actively supports and constructively advances the clarification of the facts. This includes internal investigations, active cooperation with authorities, disclosure of relevant documents and clear allocation of responsibilities. However, the duty to cooperate is limited where the disclosure of sensitive information prepares the enforcement of damages claims and jeopardises the company’s effective defence in civil proceedings.
• Introduction of Effective Technical, Organisational and Personnel-Related Measures: The measures to be introduced must be suitable to effectively address the established misconduct and enable a reliable prognosis that comparable infringements will not occur in the future, particularly in light of the circumstances that gave rise to the register entry. Which measures are necessary and sufficient in an individual case always depends on the seriousness of the infringement and the specific circumstances of the case. The decisive factor is that the company explains in a comprehensible manner how the causes of the misconduct have been addressed structurally, procedurally and in personnel terms.
  

Technical and organisational measures primarily serve to prevent future infringements and include, in particular, compliance structures. A Compliance Management System that has been further developed in response to the specific incident can regularly make an important contribution to self-cleaning by bringing together the measures taken in a structured manner and implementing them systematically. Such measures may include:

• conducting risk analyses;
  
• implementing internal controls and effective control mechanisms;
• training and awareness programmes for employees;
• establishing or improving whistleblowing systems and internal investigation processes;
• regular monitoring measures, including effectiveness reviews of the safeguards implemented.
  

Personnel-related measures constitute a response to the individuals involved and at the same time serve to prevent further infringements. Depending on the seriousness of the infringement and the circumstances of the individual case, personnel-related measures may range from a warning to termination, including termination without notice, with the latter regularly being the most effective sanction and regarded by the legislature as the standard case.

4. Notification Under Section 3(2) WRegG

Listed companies may at any time submit a notification stating that, in their view, they have successfully carried out self-cleaning. This notification is stored without substantive review and transmitted together with the register information when the register is queried. However, it neither replaces the substantive assessment nor the application for deletion. The notification is particularly relevant where a company has already taken measures before registration or where the deletion procedure is still ongoing. The procedure is purely declaratory and is carried out using a standardised form.

5. Why Legal Support Is Crucial

The self-cleaning procedure is one of the most legally complex and, at the same time, most consequential instruments of public procurement law. Companies must not only clearly identify the causes of the infringement, clarify responsibilities and implement effective and sustainable measures; they must also document these measures in a structured, verifiable and consistent manner. If there is no convincing overall presentation, the German Federal Cartel Office may reject the application and exclusion from procurement procedures may remain in place. Comprehensive legal support is therefore essential, both for developing a robust self-cleaning strategy and for preparing the required documentation in a legally sound manner for submission to the register authority and use in procurement procedures.

Deloitte Legal supports companies comprehensively in all legal matters in this context – from the legal analysis of the initial situation and support in self-cleaning proceedings to strategic advice in ongoing and future procurement procedures and the enforcement of their interests before the competent authorities and courts.

Regulatory & Compliance | Deloitte Legal Germany: Felix Skala (Antitrust Law) and Sebastian Schnitzler (Public Procurement Law)

6. Role of the Compliance Management System

An effective Compliance Management System forms the core of the reliability prognosis. Authorities do not merely assess whether a CMS exists, but in particular whether it is actually effective. This effectiveness is the decisive factor in any self-cleaning process. Experience shows that the quality of the CMS plays a key role in whether authorities and contracting authorities recognise self-cleaning as credible. Companies that invest in robust compliance structures at an early stage not only create the basis for successful self-cleaning, but also sustainably strengthen their position in competition for public contracts.

Deloitte supports companies with an interdisciplinary team in building and optimising such systems, including technical implementation and preparation for CMS audits. Further information on how an effective CMS can be established or optimised in your company is available on our Compliance Management System (CMS) page.

Compliance Management System | Deloitte Germany (in German Language): Susanne Schenk

7. Conclusion

The Competition Register strengthens the integrity of public procurement and at the same time increases the requirements imposed on companies. Self-cleaning is not a mere formality, but a demanding process that requires a thorough organisational examination of causes, responsibilities and prevention structures. Early legal support is therefore a decisive success factor for the effective implementation of self-cleaning, not least with regard to the implementation and further development of an effectively designed CMS.