Introduction
The evidence for a claim sometimes sits in documents held by the opposing party or a third party: an administration, correspondence, a contract or an email exchange. A party with a legitimate interest can claim access to, or a copy of, those documents. Since 1 January 2025 the familiar exhibition duty of Section 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) has lapsed and been absorbed into a new regime in Sections 194 to 195a DCCP. The core remains the same, but the conditions and scope have been broadened and clarified on points. The contours of the doctrine remain visible in the case law on the former Section 843a DCCP, which retains its meaning under the new law.
From Section 843a to Section 194 DCCP
Section 843a DCCP is still widely cited in practice, but was replaced on 1 January 2025 by the regime of Section 194 et seq. DCCP, placed in the new paragraph on access to, a copy of, or an extract from data. The regime allows a standalone access claim, even where no proceedings on the merits are yet pending, and broadens on points the range of documents and the situations in which access can be claimed. A party still relying on Section 843a DCCP is well advised to re-test the claim under the new law: the requirements of a legitimate interest, sufficiently specified documents and a legal relationship return, albeit in a modernised form.
The requirements: legitimate interest, specified documents and a legal relationship
An order requires that the applicant has a legitimate interest in access, that the documents are described with sufficient precision and that there is a legal relationship to which the applicant is a party. An untargeted search, a so-called fishing expedition, is not granted. In a recent judgment the Supreme Court clarified how strictly this operates: a claim for a copy of “all correspondence” about a contract and of all documents evidencing payments is insufficiently specified and lacks a concrete legitimate interest, whereas access to the contract itself was grantable (Supreme Court 5 December 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1812). The documents must therefore be identified concretely and the interest substantiated per category.
The concept of a legal relationship was also sharpened in that judgment. A legal relationship can arise not only from a contract but also directly from the law: a statutory obligation is regarded as a legal relationship within the meaning of Section 843a (old) DCCP. Thus the account-rendering duty of the mandatary (Article 7:403(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, DCC) can provide a basis for access to an adviser’s file. The court then weighs the interest in access against the interests of the party holding the documents, including confidentiality and the protection of trade secrets.
Evidentiary attachment: preserve first, inspect later
To prevent evidence from disappearing before access can be enforced, an evidentiary attachment (bewijsbeslag) can be levied with leave of the preliminary relief judge. That such attachment is possible outside intellectual-property cases too was decided by the Supreme Court in a preliminary ruling: Sections 730 and 843a DCCP provide a sufficient basis, provided the conditions of Section 843a DCCP are met and the attachment is confined to sufficiently specified documents, digital files included (Supreme Court 13 September 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BZ9958). Decisive is the two-step structure: the attachment gives only a right to preservation, not to surrender or inspection. To actually inspect the attached material a separate judicial authorisation is needed, in which the court determines which part of the material may be inspected and safeguards confidentiality.
The ordinary attachment rules apply, which means that a claim on the merits must follow the attachment in good time (Article 704(2) DCCP). The Supreme Court has confirmed that the access claim itself, brought in separate proceedings or as an interlocutory claim, counts as that claim on the merits; if it is not brought, or brought too late, the attachment lapses (Supreme Court 5 December 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1812). Access can also be claimed from a third party holding the documents. A privilege or a weighty confidentiality interest can set limits to access.
What decides the outcome
The outcome is rarely decided by a single requirement, but by the precise delimitation of what is requested and the substantiation of the legitimate interest per category of document. A party that describes the documents sharply, makes the interest concrete, names the legal relationship and tests the claim under the new Section 194 DCCP rather than under the lapsed Section 843a DCCP stands strongest. A well-prepared access claim, combined where appropriate with an evidentiary attachment, can decide a dispute even before the proceedings on the merits begin.