Con­tract law: Dis­clo­sure of sen­si­ti­ve infor­ma­ti­on in disputes

How do I deal with this and what do I need to bear in mind?

In busi­ness life, dis­pu­tes with cus­to­mers or sup­pli­ers are an unwan­ted but nevert­hel­ess regu­lar part of ever­y­day life – for exam­p­le, in con­nec­tion with a war­ran­ty cla­im. To sub­stan­tia­te one’s own cla­im, the ques­ti­on often ari­ses as to whe­ther and to what ext­ent inter­nal infor­ma­ti­on or exter­nal docu­ments – for exam­p­le, tho­se of one’s own cus­to­mer – may be dis­c­lo­sed. An exam­p­le: A com­pa­ny wants to pro­ve to its sup­pli­er that a defect has cau­sed dama­ge to a cus­to­mer, for which the sup­pli­er is lia­ble. Inter­nal pro­ces­ses, emails, or con­tracts with the cus­to­mer could be rele­vant for this. But what can and should be disclosed—and what should not?

Ext­ra­ju­di­cial dis­clo­sure: Res­traint is advised

Out­side of court pro­cee­dings, the­re is gene­ral­ly no legal obli­ga­ti­on to dis­c­lo­se docu­ments or infor­ma­ti­on to the con­trac­tu­al part­ner – unless this has been con­trac­tual­ly agreed. Pre­cis­e­ly becau­se sen­si­ti­ve inter­nal com­pa­ny infor­ma­ti­on may be affec­ted, dis­clo­sure should always be review­ed and weig­hed up.

In addi­ti­on, the docu­ments may also con­tain infor­ma­ti­on about other busi­ness part­ners, such as cus­to­mers or sub­con­trac­tors. This data is usual­ly sub­ject to legal (e.g., under the Ger­man Trade Secrets Act) or con­trac­tu­al con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obli­ga­ti­ons (e.g., from con­fi­den­tia­li­ty agree­ments). Data pro­tec­tion and com­pe­ti­ti­on law pro­vi­si­ons may also be rele­vant and must be observed.

At the same time, in many cases the­re is a prac­ti­cal need to pro­vi­de at least basic infor­ma­ti­on – for exam­p­le, to sub­stan­tia­te the dama­ge and/or enable the sup­pli­er to invol­ve its lia­bi­li­ty insu­rance com­pa­ny, which can faci­li­ta­te the enforce­ment of one’s own claims. In such cases, it is advi­sa­ble, for exam­p­le, to

  • only dis­c­lo­se what is abso­lut­e­ly necessary,
  • anony­mi­ze or redact documents,
  • rest­rict access tech­ni­cal­ly (e.g., via secu­re data rooms),
  • and/or, in indi­vi­du­al cases, obtain pri­or con­sent to dis­clo­sure from the third par­ty concerned.

Ulti­m­ate­ly, in out-of-court cases, it is neces­sa­ry to find the per­mis­si­ble and reasonable ext­ent to which claims can be heard and enforced. Howe­ver, a pre­sen­ta­ti­on as in court pro­cee­dings is not abso­lut­e­ly neces­sa­ry for this purpose.

Court dis­clo­sure: New pro­tec­ti­ve mecha­nisms from April 2025

The situa­ti­on is dif­fe­rent in court pro­cee­dings: anyo­ne wis­hing to assert claims in civil pro­cee­dings gene­ral­ly bears the bur­den of pro­of for the facts of the case. Ulti­m­ate­ly, the court asses­ses whe­ther the evi­dence pre­sen­ted is suf­fi­ci­ent. This may mean that sen­si­ti­ve trade secrets or cus­to­mer docu­ments must also be submitted.

To ensu­re that such pro­prie­ta­ry or cus­to­mer infor­ma­ti­on does not beco­me public or is dis­c­lo­sed to unin­ten­ded third par­ties, ther­eby poten­ti­al­ly vio­la­ting con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obli­ga­ti­ons, neces­sa­ry pro­tec­ti­ve mea­su­res must be taken in addi­ti­on to the con­side­ra­ti­ons out­lined above.

Until March 31, 2025, this was only pos­si­ble with very limi­t­ed means. The­se included, for exam­p­le, exclu­ding the public from the pro­cee­dings (Sec­tion 174 of the Ger­man Courts Con­sti­tu­ti­on Act (Gerichts­ver­fas­sungs­ge­setz)).

Howe­ver, sin­ce April 1, 2025, courts can take new pro­tec­ti­ve mea­su­res: With Sec­tion 273a of the Ger­man Code of Civil Pro­ce­du­re (ZPO), a new pro­vi­si­on has been intro­du­ced that refers to the Ger­man Trade Secrets Act (GeschGehG).

Pur­su­ant to Sec­tion 273a ZPO, courts can now, at the request of one of the par­ties, resort to the pro­ce­du­ral pro­tec­tion mecha­nisms of Sec­tions 16–20 GeschGehG and thus take the fol­lo­wing mea­su­res in particular:

  • rest­ric­ted access to court files,
  • con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obli­ga­ti­ons for par­ties invol­ved in the proceedings,
  • par­ti­al­ly redac­ted or anony­mi­zed evidence,
  • non-public hea­rings in excep­tio­nal cases.

This gives trade secrets grea­ter pro­tec­tion in civil pro­cee­dings. The pro­vi­si­on appli­es to all types of pro­cee­dings, inclu­ding pro­cee­dings for a preli­mi­na­ry injunc­tion or in inde­pen­dent pro­cee­dings for the taking of evidence.

Requi­re­ments for the appli­ca­ti­on pur­su­ant to Sec­tion 273a ZPO

An appli­ca­ti­on for the pro­tec­tion of sen­si­ti­ve infor­ma­ti­on must be spe­ci­fic and suf­fi­ci­ent­ly sub­stan­tia­ted. Important:

  • The docu­ments in ques­ti­on must be pre­cis­e­ly iden­ti­fied and, if alre­a­dy sub­mit­ted, the pas­sa­ges clas­si­fied as secret must be cle­ar­ly mark­ed (Sec­tion 20 (4) sen­tence 1 GeschGehG).
  • In the case of an appli­ca­ti­on for rest­ric­tion of access (Sec­tion 19 GeschGehG), a redac­ted ver­si­on must also be atta­ched, which can be made available to per­sons excluded from access (Sec­tion 20 (4) sen­tence 2 GeschGehG).

What if third-party infor­ma­ti­on is affected?

If appro­pria­te mea­su­res have been taken, it may be per­mis­si­ble, within the bounds of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty and after weig­hing up the inte­rests invol­ved, to dis­c­lo­se such infor­ma­ti­on in civil pro­cee­dings wit­hout vio­la­ting any con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obli­ga­ti­ons, even wit­hout the con­sent of the owner of the infor­ma­ti­on and despi­te exis­ting con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obli­ga­ti­ons. Howe­ver, this must be exami­ned on a case-by-case basis.

back

Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.