Article 9(1): Member States shall ensure that national courts may order, on the request of an injured person claiming compensation for damage caused by a defective product who has presented FACTS + EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM, the disclosure of RELEVANT EVIDENCE that is at the disposal of the defendant. Article 9(2): courts may also, on the defendant's request, order injured person disclosure where the defendant has presented sufficient facts + evidence to support a defence. Article 9(3): the disclosure shall be limited to what is necessary + proportionate, considering the costs + burdens + commercial interests of the parties. Article 9(4): protection of trade secrets per Directive (EU) 2016/943 + confidential information must be preserved through procedural safeguards (in camera review + redaction + protective orders). This is one of the most consequential modernisations: the injured person no longer needs full access to the manufacturer's R&D + technical files at the outset; the court orders proportionate disclosure on plausibility threshold. Failing to comply with a disclosure order triggers a PRESUMPTION OF DEFECTIVENESS in favour of the injured person under Article 11(2)(a).
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.