The duty to disclose: no discovery, but targeted inspection
A company suspects that its former director steered transactions to himself. A former partner suspects the other of concealing income. The documents that could clear this up are held by the other side. Dutch law has no discovery of the kind found in the United States. There, parties must hand over documents to each other on a large scale before a hearing. What Dutch law does have is a right for a party to a legal relationship, such as a contract, to inspect specified information about it, if it has a sufficient interest. This is the duty to disclose (exhibitieplicht) under Section 194 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), which replaced Section 843a DCCP on 1 January 2025. That right reaches far enough for a targeted search, where known facts support the suspicion. It does not reach a search on the off chance. Two cases in which the same thing was asked, a search with search terms in data that had been attached, show the difference.
Two searches, two outcomes
In Breda, a property company suspected its former directors of a scheme. They bought homes on behalf of the company "for a nominee to be named" (meester) and then named their own company as buyer. It knew of four, with a claimed loss of at least €154,500, but not how many more there were. One of the directors acknowledged at the hearing that it had happened more often. The company had attached their data to preserve evidence; copies were held by a court-appointed custodian. It asked the custodian to search them for "meester" and "koopsom" (purchase price) and to copy the results to it. Undisputedly, only the company used the word "meester", in its own purchase agreements. The provisional relief judge allowed the search. That more information than necessary might turn up was "unavoidable in a search" and in itself no ground for refusal, given the weightier interest of the applicant (District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant 7 May 2025, paras 5.7-5.12 and 5.18).
In Amsterdam, a debt collection agency held a former client responsible for an online smear campaign, also under aliases and anonymously. Here too his data had been attached, and here too a search was requested: all e-mail since 2013, physical documents and data carriers containing one of forty search terms. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal upheld the refusal. References on LinkedIn to a critical website, an IP address not shown to be the former client's, matching initials and the suggestion that he was online at the same time were no substantiation. Many of the agency's clients were dissatisfied and said so online, so similarities between posts said little. The suspected involvement was "entirely speculative". Because no fact linked the former client to the anonymous posts, the court called the request a fishing expedition: a search for information to which there is no right. Such a request does not meet the statutory requirements (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 8 September 2026, paras 5.2 and 6.10-6.11).
Both times the same thing was asked. The difference lay in two things: how well known facts supported the suspicion, and how broad the request was. In Breda, it was not disputed that the directors had nominated themselves as buyer, and the search terms were tailored to that kind of transaction (District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant 7 May 2025, para. 5.9). Having refused despite their duty as directors to inform, they had also caused the need for the search themselves (District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant 7 May 2025, paras 5.14 and 5.18). In Amsterdam, any beginning of plausibility that the former client was behind the posts was missing, and the court took into account that the claim covered all his private correspondence, among other things (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 8 September 2026, paras 6.10-6.11).
According to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, an applicant need not yet show that its claim is sufficiently likely. It must, however, put forward facts that give at least the beginning of a basis for the ground the inspection is meant to serve (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 8 September 2026, para. 6.10). The Hague Court of Appeal appears stricter (see the questions below). Search terms define a request, but they do not replace the facts that must support the suspicion.
What the court wants to see
The right of inspection under Section 194(1) DCCP has four requirements. The applicant is a party to a legal relationship. That may be a contract, but also an obligation arising directly from statute, the Supreme Court held, still under the old law (Supreme Court 5 December 2025, para. 3.4.2). It asks for specified information about that relationship. The person asked holds it. And the applicant has a sufficient interest in it. The requirement that the information be specified does not mean that every document must be named with its date and content: its nature, period or subject, possibly with the persons involved, can suffice (District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant 7 May 2025, para. 5.16).
How broad a request may be also depends on the facts. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal gave a woman in a maintenance case, who had to prove undeclared income of the man, twelve months of statements for all his business and private accounts. That she did not know how many accounts he had or with which banks did not make the request a fishing expedition, partly because it was limited to twelve months (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 30 July 2026, paras 2.13-2.14).
The Hague Court of Appeal, by contrast, refused a request for bank statements of a director in a private capacity, a holding company and four other companies covering almost two years. For the four companies, a bankruptcy report mentioning withdrawals without names was not enough. It seemed the applicants wanted as much information as possible in the hope of finding something useful. For the private account and the holding company, further concrete indications of wrongful withdrawals were missing. Without those indications, inspection was disproportionate: it would seriously intrude on the director's private life (The Hague Court of Appeal 18 November 2025, paras 5.6-5.7).
Sometimes another right reaches further. Asking for a company's complete records is not specific enough under Section 194 DCCP; the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal followed the explanatory memorandum on that point. Even so, a partner in a partnership obtained all the records, under Section 3:15j of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC): partners and joint owners with a direct and sufficient interest can claim disclosure of the records (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 15 September 2026, para. 3.7).
Confidentiality: conditions or refusal
Whoever holds the information need not provide it where it has a right to refuse to give evidence, such as a lawyer or doctor, or where weighty reasons oppose it (Section 194(2) DCCP). Confidential business information can be such a reason, but a party invoking it must substantiate it specifically (The Hague Court of Appeal 27 January 2026, para. 5.5; The Hague Court of Appeal 16 December 2025, para. 6.8).
Courts can also resolve it with conditions (Section 195(2) DCCP) or with confidentiality. The Hague Court of Appeal ordered an investigation report to be provided, with permission to pseudonymise the names of interviewees and with a duty of confidentiality backed by a penalty (The Hague Court of Appeal 16 December 2025, paras 6.10-6.12). A non-disclosure agreement, redaction or inspection by a lawyer or expert only are also possible ('s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal 3 March 2026, para. 3.21). In Breda, correspondence with the directors' lawyers was kept out of the search (District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant 7 May 2025, para. 5.20).
How does a good request for inspection start?
An effective request starts with a precise description of the inquiry. Which facts are already known? Which question remains open? Which information can answer it? And why does this particular party hold it? Answer those questions for each category of information, with a period, a subject and the persons involved. Link each category to a concrete allegation in the proceedings. That leaves the court little room to speak of fishing. Breda shows what this looks like: known transactions, an admission and search terms tailored to that kind of transaction. Offer conditions yourself for what is confidential.
A party asked to disclose can argue that the request rests only on suspicions or is too broad, but must make a weighty reason concrete. Saying that the documents requested do not exist is not always enough. A lawyer acting as intermediary who had not disclosed his own interest in a deal merely stated that there were no drafts of the agreement. According to the Supreme Court, still under the old law, more could be expected of him in particular (Supreme Court 5 December 2025, para. 3.6.2; opinion of the Advocate General 4 July 2025, para. 5.31).
The difference between Breda and Amsterdam is the difference between searching for evidence for a case and searching for a case. A party that convincingly works out the link between dispute and information can use Section 194 DCCP to close an information gap, even when the precise content of the documents is still unknown.
Frequently asked questions
What is the duty to disclose (exhibitieplicht)?
The duty to give a party to a legal relationship inspection of, a copy of or an extract from specified information about that relationship, if that party has a sufficient interest. Since 1 January 2025 it has been in Section 194 DCCP; before that it was in Section 843a DCCP. Information held by a third party can also be requested (Section 195a DCCP). The statute places the costs of providing it on the applicant (Section 194(1) DCCP).
Can I claim inspection during pending proceedings, including on appeal?
Yes. On request, the court can order the opposing party to provide information (Section 195 DCCP), in principle at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal after refusal at first instance (The Hague Court of Appeal 27 January 2026, para. 5.2). An appeal lodged after 1 January 2025 falls under the new law, even if the case began earlier (The Hague Court of Appeal 27 January 2026, para. 5.3). Before proceedings, inspection can be requested as a preliminary evidentiary measure (Section 196 DCCP). In urgent cases the request can also be made to the provisional relief judge (Section 197(1) DCCP); a claim for inspection in preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding) requires urgency ('s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal 3 March 2026, paras 3.18 and 3.21).
Do I first have to show that I am sufficiently likely to have a claim?
Not according to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and Advocate General De Bock: the beginning of a factual basis is enough (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 8 September 2026, para. 6.10; opinion of the Advocate General 4 July 2025, para. 4.12). The Hague Court of Appeal called the Supreme Court's stricter standard under Section 843a DCCP relevant too, and refused the claim for lack of interest, because the causal link was insufficiently plausible (The Hague Court of Appeal 27 January 2026, paras 5.7 and 5.11). How high the threshold lies is therefore not yet settled.
Cited case law
Supreme Court: ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1812 (5 December 2025, paras 3.4.2 and 3.6.2; still under Section 843a (former) DCCP: a statutory obligation is a legal relationship; the refusal of drafts and payment records did not stand).
Opinions: ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:753 (Advocate General De Bock, 4 July 2025, paras 4.12 and 5.31; under Section 194 DCCP the claim no longer has to be shown to be sufficiently likely; a bare denial that drafts exist is not enough where the holder concealed his interest).
Courts of appeal: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:2451 (Amsterdam, 8 September 2026, paras 6.10-6.11; also under Section 194 DCCP merely asserting a legal relationship is not enough; at least the beginning of a factual basis is required; a search on a speculative basis, also given the very broad claim, is a fishing expedition); ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2342 (The Hague, 18 November 2025, paras 5.6-5.7; bank statements of four companies are fishing; of the private account and holding company disproportionate); ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2685 (The Hague, 16 December 2025, paras 6.8-6.12; a weighty reason must be substantiated specifically; full investigation report with pseudonymisation and confidentiality); ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:169 (The Hague, 27 January 2026, paras 5.2-5.15; new law per instance; interlocutory application possible again on appeal; confidential business information a weighty reason; all communications in a bidding process too broad); ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:4987 (Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 30 July 2026, paras 2.13-2.14; statements of all accounts over twelve months are no fishing, even though the applicant did not know the accounts); ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5940 (Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 15 September 2026, para. 3.7; complete company records insufficiently specified under Section 194 DCCP, but granted under Section 3:15j DCC); ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2026:580 ('s-Hertogenbosch, 3 March 2026, paras 3.18 and 3.21; inspection in preliminary relief proceedings requires urgency; confidentiality via the least burdensome route).
District courts: ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:3337 (Zeeland-West-Brabant, 7 May 2025, paras 5.9-5.20; search with tailored search terms allowed; more information than necessary is unavoidable).