An employee who makes an invention may be entitled to compensation, but how does one prove its value and terms if the employer withholds all information? Yes, a court can require an employer to release crucial, confidential documents. However, to protect the employer's trade secrets, the court will impose strict conditions through what is known as a \"confidentiality circle\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This case pitted a group of (former) employees, including researchers and engineers, against their employer, the Nuclear Study Center (SCK). <\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup>During their employment, these workers were involved in the development of an innovative technology (Actinium-225). <\/sup>It was undisputed that the rights to these inventions, as so-called \"service inventions,\" belonged to the employer. <\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The conflict arose when the employees demanded special compensation for their inventions, a right laid down in SCK's labor regulations. According to the regulations, the inventors were entitled to a share of the net proceeds if SCK would grant a licence to a patent<\/a> in return for a fee to a third party. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To support their claim, the workers asked the court to order SCK to produce several crucial documents, including the internal procedures surrounding intellectual property<\/a>, board reports and the effective license agreement with a third party. The employer refused, arguing it was an impermissible \"fishing expedition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Antwerp Labor Court, Turnhout Division, ruled on this demand for access to documents on 26 May 2025, even before the dispute was heard on the merits. <\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court only partially agreed with the workers' request. It ordered SCK to produce the documents that were directly relevant to assessing whether the conditions in the labor regulations had been met. <\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup> Specifically, this concerned:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other more general questions about documents, such as valuation reports or all written communications, were rejected because they were deemed insufficiently specific or irrelevant. <\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, however, the court coupled the inspection with strict safeguards to protect SCK's trade secrets. The court established a confidentiality circle<\/strong> . This circle determined exactly who was allowed to see the sensitive information:<\/p>\n\n\n\n To underscore the seriousness of this confidentiality, the court attached a penalty of \u20ac50,000 per violation to the confidentiality obligation. <\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n This ruling perfectly illustrates the delicate balance between two fundamental legal principles: the right to evidence and the protection of trade secrets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The workers' claim relies on article 877 of the Judicial Code<\/a><\/strong>, which allows a party to require the production of documents in the possession of the opposing party. The court may order this if there are \"weighty, certain and consistent presumptions\" that those documents contain evidence of a relevant fact. The court strictly applied this principle by allowing only those documents that were directly relevant to the terms of the employment regulations and rejected the vaguely defined requests as an impermissible \"fishing expedition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the court recognized the vital importance of protecting the employer's confidential and commercially sensitive information. The establishment of a confidentiality circle<\/strong>, as provided for in Article 871bis, \u00a7 2 of the Judicial Code<\/strong>, is the tool of choice for this purpose. This mechanism ensures that the gathering of evidence can continue without sensitive information being made public or misused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The composition of the circle is particularly interesting. The law requires that at least one natural person from the party itself must have access to the information. A circle composed of lawyers only (\"Attorneys' Eyes Only\") is the exception in Belgium. The court here opted for a pragmatic solution by designating one employee who was still under employment contract and thus already bound by the confidentiality obligation of article 17 of the Employment Contracts Act<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What is a confidentiality circle?<\/strong> Can I just request all of my employer's documents?<\/strong> What do I risk if I violate confidentiality circle rules?<\/strong> This labor court ruling is a textbook example of how Belgian justice balances an employee's right to prove his case with an employer's legitimate right to protect his trade secrets. It shows that the procedural means exist to obtain access, but that confidentiality is paramount in doing so. The confidentiality circle is the key tool in this regard.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLabor court decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A confidentiality circle is a court-established, limited group of individuals (e.g., parties, attorneys, experts) who are the only ones given access to sensitive or confidential information in the context of litigation. The purpose is to preserve the right to evidence without putting trade secrets on the street.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No. As this ruling demonstrates, your request must be specific and relevant. You must show that the documents requested are relevant to proving your claim. General and vague requests are considered a \"fishing expedition\" and will be rejected by the court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The consequences are very serious. The court imposes, as in this case, high penalty payments (\u20ac50,000 per violation) to deter any violation. This is separate from any additional damages the other party may claim. <\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n