Evidentiary attachment and the right to inspection: the limits of Section 843a DCCP
A request for inspection of documents under Section 843a DCCP is not limited by the basis of an earlier evidentiary attachment. The Supreme Court puts an end to the practice whereby courts assess requests for inspection as an extension of the attachment, and clarifies when a legal entity is entitled to inspect its own records.
Note: Section 843a DCCP lapsed on 1 January 2025 and was absorbed into Sections 194 to 195a DCCP.
Aprisco seeks inspection after evidentiary attachment of Costa Rica fraud records
Aprisco B.V. and its sister companies stood for decades as the ultimate parties behind the Nativa real estate project in Costa Rica. From 2001, the respondent managed that project as sole director of the Costa Rican operating company. In 2022, Aprisco and its co-claimants levied an evidentiary attachment (bewijsbeslag) on his documents. The reason: the suspicion that he had for years withdrawn millions from the project and had registered shares in a sister company in his own name.
At the same time, the settlement agreement concluded in 2019 was annulled on grounds of deceit. Aprisco and its co-claimants sought inspection of the attached documents under Section 843a (old) DCCP. The Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden granted that claim in part, but imposed three restrictions that in effect hollow out the inspection.
First restriction: the court assessed the request for inspection as an extension of the evidentiary attachment. Documents outside the basis of the attachment were excluded. Second: the period was limited to after 1 January 2010, even though the court itself had established that concrete indications of fraud existed dating from 2009. Third: the court disregarded the fact that Aprisco also acted as an agent (lasthebber) for Missy N.V. in the claim to inspect its own records.
Supreme Court: attachment preserves, but does not limit the inspection
The Supreme Court sets aside the judgment on all three points. The core: an evidentiary attachment is a conservatory measure that preserves documents so that a later order for inspection can be enforced. Attachment and inspection are legally independent instruments. The basis of the attachment does not determine the scope of the right to inspection. Anyone who assesses it otherwise confuses the measure with the right it is intended to secure. The request for inspection may also cover documents that do not fall under the evidentiary attachment.
On the time limitation, the Supreme Court is equally clear. The court itself had established concrete indications of fraud dating from 2009, financial relationships between the respondent and a former director that raised questions. In that case, a cut-off date of 1 January 2010 is contradictory. A court that acknowledges the facts but refuses inspection of the documents underpinning those facts does not give comprehensible reasons.
Finally, the Supreme Court confirms the Belba principle (the principle that a legal entity seeking inspection of its own records has, by definition, a legitimate interest): where a legal entity seeks inspection of its own records, the requirements of legitimate interest and specificity are in principle satisfied. The court had not disregarded that rule, but was not permitted to pass over Aprisco's role as agent for Missy without giving reasons. The case has been referred to the Court of Appeal 's-Hertogenbosch.
What does this mean for practice regarding evidentiary attachment and inspection?
The error corrected here is regularly made in practice: the court assesses the claim for inspection as if it were a continuation of the attachment proceedings. That is incorrect. Attachment and inspection are distinct steps in the enforcement process. The basis, the period and the scope of the request for inspection are assessed independently under Section 843a DCCP, not on the basis of what was previously stated in the attachment petition.
A party that levies an evidentiary attachment need not limit the request for inspection to what is included in the attachment petition. The request for inspection may be broader, wider in time, and may cover documents that are not under attachment but are nonetheless relevant to the legitimate interest. Furthermore, the judgment shows that the specificity requirement should not be applied stringently in relation to one's own records. A legal entity that requests inspection of its own records has, by definition, a legitimate interest. For more background on enforcement and attachment law, see Prime Law's insolvency & enforcement page and corporate litigation expertise.
Frequently asked questions
Can a request for inspection also cover documents that do not fall under the evidentiary attachment?
Yes. The Supreme Court makes clear that an evidentiary attachment has a purely conservatory function: it protects documents so that an order for inspection can be enforced. The scope of the right to inspection is determined by Section 843a DCCP, not by the attachment petition.
What is the Belba principle and why is it relevant to one's own records?
The Belba judgment (Supreme Court, 29 November 2024) holds that a legal entity seeking inspection of its own records in principle satisfies the requirements of legitimate interest and specificity under Section 843a DCCP. The threshold is deliberately low for one's own records: the claimant need not extensively substantiate why it has an interest in documents that belong to it.
How far back in time may a request for inspection go?
That depends on the legitimate interest and the concrete indications in the file. A court may only limit a period if there are no relevant facts falling outside that period. If the court itself acknowledges concrete indications of irregularities for a particular period, it is contradictory to refuse inspection over that period.
ECLI:NL:HR:2026:413, Supreme Court, 13 March 2026
Cited case law
Supreme Court: ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1773 · ECLI:NL:HR:2026:413
See also
- Attachment and enforcement
- Wage attachment valid but ineffective: the garnishee declaration procedure
- Enforcement auction of home blocked
- Trustee in bankruptcy rebuffed: acquisition of customer base insufficiently substantiated
- Access to documents (Section 194 DCCP)
- Inspection of documents is not an interim measure: choosing the right procedural route