Problems regarding evidence in international cases arise from cross-border information gathering, differing procedural rules, and language barriers. At Musch Legal, we work daily with Regulation 2020/1783, the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970, and IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence. Anyone gathering international evidence without a strategy risks rejection in proceedings. A structured approach combines local routes with international legal assistance.

What is the legal problem? (What evidentiary obstacles exist internationally?)

Gathering international evidence requires knowledge of legal assistance, local procedural law, privacy rules, and sanctions law. What is permissible in the Netherlands may be prohibited elsewhere. An incorrect approach leads to the rejection of evidence in proceedings, or worse: criminal information gathering under the GDPR. For commercial disputes, this is a growing problem, especially regarding digital evidence. International witness examination requires separate preparation.

What does the law say? (Which frameworks affect the gathering of evidence?)

Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 (recast of the Evidence Regulation) governs mutual legal assistance between EU Member States via a direct electronic communication system since 1 July 2022. The Hague Evidence Convention of 1970 applies to 65+ Contracting States. Under common law (US, UK), discovery is very broad under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 and Civil Procedure Rules Part 31. The Dutch obligation to produce evidence under Article 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure is more limited. GDPR (Regulation 2016/679) Article 6 restricts data processing.

For arbitration, IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration 2020 as the standard.

Route

Processing time

Application

EU Regulation 2020/1783

3-6 months

Between EU Member States

Hague Convention on Evidence 1970

6-24 months

65+ Contracting States

US Discovery (FRCP Rule 26)

Months to years

American procedure

UK Disclosure (CPR Part 31)

3-6 months

English procedure

IBA Rules 2020

By Procedural Order

International arbitration

Route

Processing time

Application

EU Regulation 2020/1783

3-6 months

Between EU Member States

Hague Evidence Convention 1970

6-24 months

65+ Contracting States

US Discovery (FRCP Rule 26)

Months to years

American proceedings

UK Disclosure (CPR Part 31)

3-6 months

English proceedings

IBA Rules 2020

By Procedural Order

International arbitration

What risks do companies face? (What goes wrong with evidence gathering?)

Unauthorized data acquisition can be punishable under the GDPR (fines up to 4% of turnover) and sectoral laws. Insufficient evidence weakens your case. Slow legal aid delays proceedings for years. US discovery entails exorbitant costs (average 50,000-500,000 dollars). Evidence without authentication is rejected by judges. Sanctions and export controls can block data transfer (especially data from China and Russia).

Practical example from our practice (How did we collect evidence from India?)

Musch Legal represented a Dutch company in a dispute against an Indian JV partner. We needed evidence from an Indian subsidiary for proceedings in the Netherlands. A Hague Evidence Convention request took an estimated 12-18 months. In arbitration under ICC IBA Rules, the arbitrator decided on the Redfern Schedule within three weeks. Indian witnesses were heard via video link. Procedural obstacles were largely avoided, resulting in a total time saving of 8 months.

What can you do? (Which evidence strategy are you developing?)

Plan evidence gathering in preparation. Combine routes: legal assistance under Regulation 2020/1783, contractual audit rights, voluntary cooperation. For digital evidence: use forensic experts and authenticate chains. Under arbitration, make IBA Rules explicit via Procedural Order 1. Document chain of custody carefully. Take GDPR and privacy laws into account. Engage Musch Legal for evidence strategy.

Gathering evidence across borders

The role of experts in international disputes

Compensation in international disputes