Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 2 september 2016

Onder 4.24 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 2 september 2016

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 2 september 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:866.

“Even in cases in which the plaintiff has strong evidence that an employee has taken what is undoubtedly specific confidential information such as a list of customers, the court must employ a graduated response. To borrow a useful concept from the jurisprudence of the European Community, there must be proportionality between the perceived threat to the plaintiff’s rights and the remedy granted. The fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the defendant has behaved wrongfully in his commercial relationships does not necessarily justify an Anton Pillar order. People whose commercial morality allows them to take a list of customers with whom they were in contact while employed will not necessarily disobey an order of the court requiring them to deliver it up. Not everyone who is misusing confidential information will distroy documents in the face of a court order requiring him to preserve them.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/ef82db5e59a571fd4f5b3566db666046af6077472c7b202adb672ea3e58b6bf8. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt ef82db5e59a571fd4f5b3566db666046af6077472c7b202adb672ea3e58b6bf8, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 63271 tot 64233.