CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal decision on public access to file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026

The CoA disagrees with the Munich LD’s finding that a panel review under R. 333 RoP is not available against a decision of the judge-rapporteur on public access to file. The term “procedural decision or order” in R. 333.1 RoP is a broad concept requiring broad interpretation. Although the rapporteur’s decision may be of a more substantive nature in the dispute between the member of the public and the parties whose submissions are at stake, it ultimately concerns the management of the case file of the panel to which the rapporteur belongs and therefore qualifies as a procedural decision within the meaning of R. 333.1 RoP. The general principle that only the panel can decide on leave to appeal applies, and the system of panel review may only be bypassed in exceptional cases – none of which are present under R. 262.1(b) RoP.

The rapporteur’s decision under R. 262.1(b) RoP does not fall under any category of R. 220.1 RoP. It is not a “final decision” under R. 220.1(a) (it is a procedural decision), nor a decision “terminating proceedings with regard to one of the parties” under R. 220.1(b) (access to file proceedings are multi-party and the decision terminates the proceedings for all parties simultaneously). R. 220.2 RoP is better suited given the shorter time limits, lower fees, and consistency with the appeal regime for confidentiality orders under R. 262.2 ff. RoP. The correct procedural route is therefore: panel review under R. 333 RoP, followed by an appeal under R. 220.2/220.3 RoP.

Once the underlying proceedings have been concluded, whether by judgment, settlement, or withdrawal, the balance of interests generally tips in favour of granting access. The case file may still provide insight into how the court handled the dispute and/or serve legitimate interests such as scientific or educational purposes, which are no longer outweighed by the integrity of proceedings once those proceedings have ended. No proof is required as to which specific part of a document will yield educational benefit, as this generally cannot be determined in advance and would unduly restrict the public’s right of access.

A law firm qualifies as a member of the public under R. 262.1(b) RoP. Its general interest in understanding how parties and the UPC conduct proceedings, which improves its ability to advise clients professionally and competently, is a legitimate interest sufficient to justify access, even without a court decision in the underlying case.

Where the underlying proceedings have already been terminated, a confidentiality undertaking by the party requesting access is not required to protect the integrity of those proceedings. The purpose of such an undertaking (safeguarding ongoing proceedings) no longer applies.