LD Munich, July 27, 2026, Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises, UPC_CFI_1746/2026, UPC_CFI_1747/2026, UPC_CFI_1751/2026, UPC_CFI_1752/2026

While Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP grant the Court a discretion to order confidentiality measures to protect confidential information, Art. 60(1) UPCA mandatorily requires the Court to protect confidential information – except in very specific cases where the respondent’s confidentiality interests clearly cannot exist. It is thus the responsibility of the Court to ensure the protection of confidential information, in particular, in ex parte proceedings (Sec. 29 et seqq.).

Confidentiality measures had been ordered, which failed to oblige the applicants’ representatives to maintain confidentiality of the information that became apparent during the inspection and/or preservation of evidence. The request for review therefore did not challenge the entire evidence preservation order but only the lacking obligation of applicant’s representatives which was held to be admissible. Since confidentiality measures are integral to the order’s regulatory scope under Rule 196.1 RoP, the respondent has a legitimate legal interest in correcting confidentiality gaps, separate from the merits of the request (Sec. 19-20).

To prevent protection gaps under Art. 60(1) UPCA, confidentiality obligations must extend to the applicant’s representatives (Sec. 30-34).

Requiring the respondent to list all confidential information would be inappropriate and procedurally inefficient, especially since the respondent cannot know what the applicant’s representatives actually perceived. Under Rule 197.6 RoP, the Court must maintain confidentiality for accessed information upon amending an ex parte order (Sec. 38 et seqq.).