A v Progress Maschinen & Automation (CFI, 4 December 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division (P. Perrotti), signed on 4 December 2023 and dated 1 December in its heading (UPC_CFI_287/2023, App_584786/2023), a representative before the UPC based in Paris, anonymised as « A », was granted access to the application for preserving evidence and inspection filed on 23 August 2023 by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG on the basis of EP 2 726 230 (ACT_565453/2023), after redaction of personal data.

Question

Can a third party obtain access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to an application for preserving evidence and inspection, and must the court rule on access to the order already issued?

Decision

The applicant, who wished to see how a Rule 199 RoP inspection request had been worded, obtained Progress’s consent, subject to the witness’s name being redacted and the written witness statement not being disclosed. The judge granted access, as no confidentiality was needed to protect other persons, the general interest of justice or public order, subject to redaction of personal data under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular the witness’s name and the experts’ contact details. Progress must file a redacted version. There was no need to rule on the order of 25 September 2023, already published under Rule 262.1(a) RoP. The request did not cover the exhibits. Leave to appeal was refused.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the consent of the party concerned eases third-party access to pleadings, but the personal data of witnesses and experts remain redacted under the GDPR.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 199, 262.1(a) and (b) and 262.2

Regulation (EU) 2016/679

General Data Protection Regulation

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.