Key Points
- The Bestätigungsvermerk must address both the Jahresabschluss (annual financial statements) and the Lagebericht (management report) as separate subjects of the opinion.
- HGB §322.2 prescribes four possible outcomes: unqualified opinion, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, or disclaimer of opinion.
- For capital-market-oriented entities (kapitalmarktorientierte Unternehmen), the auditor must add a separate section on key audit matters (besonders wichtige Prüfungssachverhalte) to the Bestätigungsvermerk.
- The WPK's 2024 professional supervision report identified cases where auditors failed to issue the Bestätigungsvermerk as a separate document, instead only reproducing it inside the Prüfungsbericht.
What is Bestätigungsvermerk (German Auditor’s Report)?
HGB §322.1 requires the auditor to summarise the audit result in a written Bestätigungsvermerk. The opinion covers two distinct objects: the Jahresabschluss and the Lagebericht (management report). ISA [DE] 700.10–11 structures the report into prescribed sections: opinion, basis for opinion, key audit matters (where applicable), responsibilities of management and the supervisory board, and auditor's responsibilities.
The Bestätigungsvermerk sits inside the Prüfungsbericht (the long-form audit report governed by HGB §321 and IDW PS 400) but must also be reproduced in the published financial statements. HGB §322.7 requires the auditor to sign and date the Bestätigungsvermerk and state the location of issuance. The signing Wirtschaftsprüfer must hold a valid WPK registration. For audits of public-interest entities, HGB §322.3a requires a separate section reporting on the electronic format of the financial statements (ESEF compliance under §317.3a), and §322.3b requires reporting on the content of the management report's sustainability-related disclosures where applicable.
Non-PIE statutory audits follow the same ISA [DE] 700 structure but omit key audit matters and the ESEF compliance section.
Worked example
Client: German electronics company, FY2025, revenue €310M, IFRS reporter (consolidated), HGB reporter (Einzelabschluss). Schäfer is capital-market-oriented and qualifies as a public-interest entity. The statutory audit is performed by a mid-sized firm in Frankfurt.
Step 1 — Determine the opinion scope
The engagement partner identifies two Bestätigungsvermerke to issue: one for the IFRS consolidated financial statements and one for the HGB Einzelabschluss. Each Bestätigungsvermerk addresses both the financial statements and the respective Lagebericht. HGB §322.1 requires separate opinions on each set.
Documentation note: record the dual-opinion structure and the applicable frameworks (IFRS as adopted by the EU for the consolidated statements, HGB for the Einzelabschluss). Cross-reference the legal basis for each Bestätigungsvermerk to §322.1.
Step 2 — Draft the key audit matters section
Because Schäfer is capital-market-oriented, ISA [DE] 701 requires the consolidated Bestätigungsvermerk to include besonders wichtige Prüfungssachverhalte. The engagement partner selects two KAMs: revenue recognition on long-term supply contracts (€194M, 63% of consolidated revenue, recognised over time under IFRS 15) and the recoverability of a €22M capitalised development asset for a new semiconductor component. Each KAM describes the risk and the audit response performed.
Documentation note: record the KAM selection rationale in a separate working paper, cross-referencing the assessed risks under ISA [DE] 315 (Revised 2019). Document why other significant risks were not elevated to KAM status. The KAM descriptions in the Bestätigungsvermerk must be entity-specific, not template language.
Step 3 — Include ESEF and sustainability reporting sections
HGB §322.3a requires a separate section on the electronic reporting format. The team confirms Schäfer's consolidated financial statements comply with the ESEF single electronic reporting format (inline XBRL tagging). HGB §322.3b requires the Bestätigungsvermerk to address the content of the sustainability-related Lagebericht disclosures prepared under the CSRD transposition.
Documentation note: record the ESEF compliance procedures performed and the XBRL tagging verification results. Document the sustainability reporting assessment separately. File the ESEF-specific working papers apart from the financial statement audit file.
Step 4 — Sign and date the Bestätigungsvermerk
The engagement partner signs both Bestätigungsvermerke under HGB §322.7. The consolidated opinion is dated 15 March 2026 (the date the partner obtained sufficient appropriate evidence to support the opinion). The HGB Einzelabschluss opinion carries the same date because both audits concluded simultaneously.
Documentation note: record the signing date, the partner's WPK registration number, the firm's name, and the location (Frankfurt). Confirm the Bestätigungsvermerk is issued as a standalone document and not only reproduced within the Prüfungsbericht.
Conclusion: the engagement file supports both Bestätigungsvermerke because each opinion traces to its applicable framework and the KAM section uses entity-specific descriptions tied to documented risk assessments. The ESEF and sustainability sections address the PIE-specific requirements under §322.3a–3b.
Why it matters in practice
The WPK's 2024 professional supervision report (Berufsaufsicht) found that some auditors only reproduced the Bestätigungsvermerk inside the Prüfungsbericht without issuing it as a separate document. HGB §322.7 requires the auditor to sign the Bestätigungsvermerk independently. The Prüfungsbericht (governed by HGB §321) is a confidential document for the supervisory board; the Bestätigungsvermerk is a public-facing opinion that must appear in the published financial statements.
The same WPK report identified violations of §32 WPO where tax advisors (Steuerberater) co-signed Bestätigungsvermerke despite lacking the Wirtschaftsprüfer qualification. Only a registered Wirtschaftsprüfer or vereidigte Buchprüfer may sign a statutory audit opinion under HGB §322.7 in conjunction with §319 HGB.
Practitioners at smaller firms sometimes issue an unqualified Bestätigungsvermerk while noting material going concern risks only in the Prüfungsbericht. HGB §322.2 sentence 3 requires the Bestätigungsvermerk itself to address risks that endanger the entity's continued existence (Risiken, die den Fortbestand gefährden). Burying the disclosure in the Prüfungsbericht alone leaves the published opinion incomplete.
Bestätigungsvermerk vs. Controleverklaring
| Dimension | Bestätigungsvermerk (HGB §322 / ISA [DE] 700) | Controleverklaring (Standaard 700 / NV COS) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | HGB §322; ISA [DE] as transposed by the IDW | BW2 article 2:393; Standaard 700 (NV COS) |
| Fraud risk section | Not required as a separate described-approach section | Mandatory for all statutory audits since FY2022 (Standaard 700.29B) |
| Going concern section | §322.2 sentence 3 requires disclosure of going concern risks in the opinion; no separate approach section | Mandatory separate section describing the auditor's approach (Standaard 700.29A) |
| Long-form report | Prüfungsbericht (HGB §321 / IDW PS 400) is a separate confidential document | No equivalent; the controleverklaring is the sole formal audit deliverable |
| KAM requirement | PIEs only (ISA [DE] 701, §264d HGB) | OOB audits only (Standaard 701) |
The distinction matters for cross-border groups with both German and Dutch subsidiaries. An auditor drafting a Bestätigungsvermerk who applies the controleverklaring's fraud section template produces a non-standard German opinion. The formats serve different regulatory traditions: Germany separates the public opinion (Bestätigungsvermerk) from the confidential detail (Prüfungsbericht), while the Netherlands combines both functions in the controleverklaring.
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a Bestätigungsvermerk and a Prüfungsbericht?
The Bestätigungsvermerk is the public-facing auditor’s opinion under HGB §322, published alongside the financial statements. The Prüfungsbericht is the confidential long-form audit report under HGB §321, addressed to the supervisory board, covering net assets, financial position, results of operations, and the accounting system. IDW PS 400 governs the Prüfungsbericht’s structure.
Does every German statutory audit require a Bestätigungsvermerk?
Yes. HGB §322.1 requires the auditor to issue a Bestätigungsvermerk for every statutory audit conducted under §316 HGB. The form of the opinion varies (unqualified, qualified, adverse, or disclaimer under §322.2–5), but the requirement to issue the report applies regardless of company size, provided the entity exceeds the §267 thresholds triggering a mandatory audit.
When must the auditor include key audit matters in the Bestätigungsvermerk?
ISA [DE] 701 requires key audit matters (besonders wichtige Prüfungssachverhalte) only for audits of capital-market-oriented entities as defined in §264d HGB. Non-PIE statutory audits follow ISA [DE] 700 without the KAM section. The auditor may voluntarily include KAMs in a non-PIE Bestätigungsvermerk, but this is uncommon in German mid-market practice.