Short Reads

How to substantiate a claim for disclosure of records

How to substantiate a claim for disclosure of records

How to substantiate a claim for disclosure of records

05.04.2016 NL law

HR 13 November 2015, ECLI:HR:2015:3304 (AIB/Novisem).

The judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 13 November 2015 addresses the extent to which a claimant should substantiate its legitimate interest and legal relationship when claiming disclosure of documents, as required by the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).

Article 843a CCP provides the basis for claiming disclosure of evidence regarding records (bescheiden), including both hard copy and electronic files, for those claimants with  a legitimate interest in obtaining evidence. Paragraph 1 of the provision reads:

“Anyone having a legitimate interest can, at his own expenses, require from the person who has records at his disposal or in his possession, access to or a copy of specific records with regard to a legal relationship to which he or his legal predecessors are party (…)

Such claims can be submitted as a procedural matter in pending proceedings, such as proceedings on the merits. It can also be brought forward in independent proceedings, such as preliminary relief proceedings. Disclosure of records can be claimed from the party with whom the relevant “legal relationship” exists. Disclosure can also be demanded from a third party who has relevant records at his disposal, even if that third party is not necessarily a party to the legal relationship.

Article 1019a CCP further specifies that an intellectual property infringement qualifies as a legal relationship for disclosure pursuant article 843a CCP.

In the judgment at hand – in preliminary relief proceedings – the claimant, AIB, requested copies of all records, such as transport documents, administration, e-mails, correspondence, advertisement, regarding the trading in three specific varieties of celeriac. AIB argued that it could legitimately claim disclosure of these records because there were sufficient grounds to suspect infringement of protected plant variety rights by the defendant, Novisem. AIB substantiated this with proof of dissemination of a price list which mentioned the protected celeriac plant varieties and proof of a sales meeting promoting the varieties concerned. Novisem defended its position and claimed that it had not actually sold any plant material in the Netherlands and that the relevant activities were aimed at buyers outside the Netherlands, where the variety rights were not protected.

The Court of Appeal ruled that under these circumstances (and in view of Novisem’s defence) it was not sufficiently convinced that an infringement of the variety right of the claimant would be established in the proceedings on the merits and dismissed the claim. The Court added that in any case the possible infringement would be minor and for this reason the requested disclosure of records could not be justified.

Before the Supreme Court, AIB complained that the test applied by the Court of Appeal is too strict. According to AIB, a claimant is only required to substantiate its legal relationship on the basis of which it has a legitimate interest in disclosure of the records and the court should not assess the likelihood of success in the proceedings on the merits.

The Supreme Court ruled that when the existence of a legal relationship (such as an infringement of an intellectual property right) is disputed, the claimant should substantiate its claims using evidence which is already available, to the extent that the infringement, or the threat thereof, is sufficiently likely. It depends on the actual statements of both parties and the evidence presented whether the existence of a legal relationship is sufficiently likely. The Supreme Court also clarified that the threshold to determine the likelihood of the infringement, to be demonstrated by the claimant, is lower than that required in an injunction claim regarding the infringement in summary proceedings.

In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that, even if the evidence presented to the Court at most revealed a minor infringement (as stated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal), this does not entail that the claimant does not have a legitimate interest in disclosure of records. The disclosure is justified by the need of the claimant to further substantiate the nature and scale of the infringement.

The post How to substantiate a claim for disclosure of records is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl.

 

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Symposium 'From Stint to Fipronil: a compensation fund for victims of energetic government intervention in crisis situations

Seminar - Stibbe is organising a symposium in Amsterdam on Thursday 7 November entitled 'From Stint to Fipronil: a compensation fund for victims of energetic government intervention in crisis situations'. During this symposium, Stibbe lawyer Tijn Kortmann and Prof. Pieter van Vollenhoven, alongside other experts,  will speak about the compensation fund which, according to van Vollenhoven, injured parties should be able to call upon if a decision by the government turns out to be too drastic.

Read more

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
Calculating future damages from the past, Science Fiction or law?

Short Reads - Imagine having been blocked from expanding your business in 1975, litigating a claim for lost opportunities for all those years, winning that proceedings on the merits, and then having to start separate legal proceedings to determine the amount of damages to be awarded (schadestaat procedure). How does one value, in 2019, a business opportunity lost in 1975?

Read more

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring