Employers Beware: Articles 194 and 195 DCCP Are Changing the Playing Field in Employment Litigation

Since the legislative amendments that entered into force on 1 January 2025, the provisions of Articles 194 and 195 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) are increasingly being invoked in employment disputes. Employees can now approach their employer directly and demand disclosure of the complete file, including investigation reports prepared by external investigation firms, interview records and internal correspondence. If the employer refuses, the court may order disclosure.

How does it work?

Article 194 DCCP grants any party to a legal relationship the right to request inspection, copies or extracts of specific data from the opposing party, without first having to initiate legal proceedings. An employee can simply submit a written request to the employer. The term "data" is interpreted broadly and encompasses not only written documents, but also electronic files, emails, recordings and metadata.

The employee is not required to identify each document individually. However, the request must contain a sufficiently specific description of the legal position at issue and demonstrate a legitimate interest in obtaining the requested information. If the employer refuses disclosure without valid grounds, the employee may, pursuant to Article 195 DCCP, ask the court during pending proceedings to order production of the requested documents.

What information can an employee request?

The scope of information that may be requested is extensive. It may include a complete (draft) report prepared by an external investigation firm, all interview records, documents provided to the investigators as the basis for their investigation, the original complaint or report that triggered the investigation, and relevant internal communications concerning the employee.

Importantly, documents held by an external investigation firm may also be subject to disclosure where the employer relies on that firm's report, for example in support of a petition to terminate the employment agreement.

When can an employer refuse disclosure?

The law provides for two exceptions. The first concerns legal privilege, for example where documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. The second concerns compelling reasons that justify non-disclosure, such as the protection of personal data relating to third parties that cannot easily be redacted.

Promises of anonymity made to interviewed witnesses do not automatically constitute such compelling reasons. This is particularly true where the employer proceeds with dismissal or seeks termination of the employment agreement. In those circumstances, the balancing of interests will often shift in favour of the employee.

Two recent decisions illustrate the difference

In November 2025, the District Court of North Holland considered a case in which Samsung refused to disclose investigation documents during the suspension of an employee. The court ordered partial disclosure of the materials provided to Hoffmann Bedrijfsrecherche, but did not require disclosure of the interview records. At that stage, no disciplinary measure had yet been imposed and anonymity had been promised to the witnesses.

The situation changed in May 2026, when Samsung filed a petition to terminate the employment agreement. This time, the court ordered disclosure of all interview records. The employee's interests—her employment and professional reputation were at stake—outweighed the anonymity interests of the witnesses. Disclosure in pseudonymised form was considered sufficient protection, but outright refusal was no longer acceptable.

What does this mean for employers?

Particularly in termination proceedings, the principles of due process and equality of arms may result in far-reaching disclosure obligations towards employees if such disclosure is requested. Employers would therefore be well advised to take this into account from the outset of any workplace investigation. This includes the drafting of the investigation mandate, agreements regarding anonymity, and the manner in which interview records are documented.

Employers should proceed on the assumption that an employee may later request access to these materials and should be aware that production of documents can be sought through interlocutory proceedings even before substantive termination proceedings are commenced.