sou · GWB363 · 2008-06-11 00:00:00 — Vi föreslår att det i FHL införs regler om en ny bevis- säkringsåtgärd. Skyddsåtgärden bör utformas på ett sätt som i stort stämmer överens med vad som gäller för intrångsundersökning vid immaterialrättsliga intrång. Åtgärden, som bör benämnas bevis- undersökning, innebär att domstol efter ansökan kan besluta att undersökning för att söka efter bevis får göras hos den som skäligen kan antas ha angripit en företagshemlighet enligt FHL. Bevis- undersökning får göras endast hos den misstänkte angriparen och alltså inte hos tredje man. Föremål och handlingar som kan antas ha betydelse för utred- ningen får eftersökas. Undersökningen får dock inte omfatta skriftliga handlingar som omfattas av det s.k. beslagsförbudet i 27 kap. 2 § . Förutsättningar för en bevisundersökning Den näringsidkare vars företagshemlighet misstänks vara föremål för ett obehörigt angrepp ska ha rätt att framställa yrkande om bevis- undersökning. Ett sådant yrkande ska prövas av domstol. För att en domstol ska bifalla ett yrkande om bevisundersökning fordras att det skäligen kan antas att någon har angripit en företags- hemlighet enligt FHL. En bevisundersökning får emellertid beviljas endast om skälen för åtgärden uppväger den olägenhet eller det men i övrigt som åtgärden innebär för den som drabbas av den eller för något annat motstående intresse. För att ett beslut om bevis- undersökning ska kunna meddelas måste sökanden ställa säkerhet för den skada som kan tillfogas motparten. Ett beslut om bevisundersökning ska innehålla uppgifter om ändamålet med undersökningen, vilka föremål och handlingar som får eftersökas samt vilka utrymmen som får genomsökas. Om det behövs ska domstolen också förordna om andra villkor för verk- ställandet. Domstolen ska ha möjlighet att meddela beslut om bevisunder- sökning utan att höra motparten. Förutsättningen för att ett sådant beslut ska få meddelas är att ett dröjsmål skulle medföra risk för att föremål eller handlingar som har betydelse för utredning om angreppet skaffas undan, förstörs eller förvanskas. ska ansvara för verkställigheten Ett beslut om bevisundersökning ska verkställas av Kronofogde- myndigheten. Verkställigheten ska ske enligt de villkor som dom- stolen har föreskrivit och vissa bestämmelser i utsökningsbalken ska tillämpas. Vid verkställigheten får myndigheten ta fotografier och göra film- och ljudupptagningar av sådana föremål som den får söka efter. Myndigheten har också rätt att ta kopior av och göra utdrag ur sådana handlingar som den får söka efter. Myndigheten ska ha möjlighet att anlita biträde av sakkunniga och kan tillåta att sökanden vid undersökningen bistår med upplysningar. Motparten ska ha rätt att tillkalla ett juridiskt biträde. Begäran om att viss handling ska undantas Vi föreslår att sökandens motpart ska få möjlighet att begära att en viss handling eller annan dokumentation inte ska lämnas ut till sökanden. En sådan begäran kan framställas om motparten anser att verkställigheten har kommit att omfatta något som bör undantas för att ett utlämnande skulle strida mot proportionalitetsprincipen eftersom handlingen innehåller känslig information, t.ex. om den undersöktes företagshemligheter, eller för att en skriftlig handling omfattas av beslagsförbudet i 27 kap. 2 § . Begäran ska framställas till , som har att försegla den dokumentation som är föremål för begäran och överlämna den till den domstol som har fattat beslut om bevis- undersökningen. Domstolen ska utan dröjsmål pröva om det finns skäl att inte lämna ut handlingen eller dokumentationen till sökanden. Myndigheters befattning med företagshemligheter m.m. Enligt våra direktiv har nuvarande regler om hur myndigheter ska hantera företagshemligheter påståtts ha en återhållande effekt när det gäller näringsidkares benägenhet att initiera en prövning av påstådda angrepp på hans eller hennes företagshemligheter. Utred- ningen har haft i uppgift att analysera vissa frågeställningar i an- slutning till detta och överväga om något kan och bör göras för att komma till rätta med konstaterade problem. Enligt vår uppfattning innebär bestämmelserna om sekretess för enskilds affärs- och driftförhållanden att det normalt gäller domstolssekretess för företagshemligheter eftersom det måste anses innebära en avsevärd skada för näringsidkaren om en företags- hemlighet röjs. Även när det gäller andra myndigheter gäller normalt sekretess för företagshemligheter. Vi har inte funnit anledning att skärpa sekretessen för företagshemligheter ytterligare. Normalt råder alltså sekretess för företagshemligheter i domstol och hos andra myndigheter. Den som inte är part i en rättegång men begär att få ut en handling som innehåller en företagshemlighet ska därför normalt få avslag på sin begäran. En part kan däremot i all- mänhet inte nekas att få del av uppgifter i ett mål eller ärende. Förvaltningsmyndigheter och domstolar som inte tillämpar rätte- gångsbalken kan emellertid när en sekretessbelagd uppgift lämnas ut till en enskild ställa upp förbehåll som inskränker den enskildes rätt att lämna uppgiften vidare eller att utnyttja den. De som bryter mot ett sådant förbehåll kan straffas för brott mot tystnadsplikt. Enligt vår bedömning innebär dessa regler att det finns goda möjligheter att skydda företagshemligheter i allmänna handlingar som lämnas ut till en part hos en förvaltningsmyndighet eller en förvaltningsdomstol. Detta gäller t.ex. handlingar som lämnar ut till rättighetshavare i vissa fall vid misstanke om att varor utgör intrång i immateriella rättigheter. Vi anser emellertid inte att det är en framkomlig väg att ändra sekretesslagen så att de allmänna domstolarna får möjlighet att ställa upp förbehåll i samband med att en part får del av en allmän handling med en företagshemlighet. Vi har funnit att den bästa lösningen i stället är att det i 8 § FHL införs en ny skadeståndsregel som innebär att den som uppsåtligen eller av oaktsamhet utan giltigt skäl röjer eller i näringsverksamhet utnyttjar en företagshemlighet som han eller hon i egenskap av part har fått del av genom beslut av en domstol ska ersätta den skada som uppkommer genom förfarandet. Giltigt skäl att röja uppgiften kan t.ex. vara att den ska utnyttjas i det mål eller andra förfarande som har föranlett domstolens beslut. Dessutom föreslår vi att det i 8 § första stycket FHL införs ett tillägg så att skadeståndsansvar kan inträda även för den som upp- såtligen eller av oaktsamhet röjer eller i näringsverksamhet ut- nyttjar en företagshemlighet som han eller hon inser eller bör inse har röjts i strid med ett förordnande eller ett förbehåll som har meddelats med stöd av sekretesslagen. Following the entry into force of the Act on the Protection of Business Secrets (FHL) almost twenty years ago, the conditions for enterprise have changed in several respects. Today, an increasing number of businesses base their operation on information and knowledge rather than on traditional industrial production. High- level research and development is being conducted in many new areas that are vital to society, such as information technology and biotechnology. The development of technology has led to infor- mation being stored and transferred in completely different ways than previously. has become in many areas. These factors have increased the risk of Swedish businesses being exposed to international corporate espionage. Since the Act was passed, has made international commitments concerning the protection of business secrets. In light of this, the Inquiry has been assigned to review certain issues regarding the protection of business secrets and to consider whether the FHL ought to be amended and adapted to this development in certain respects (Directive 2007:54, see Appendix 1). Our remit was to consider whether the scope of the FHL was de- limited in a way that was fit for purpose, in which connection special consideration was to be given to the needs of modern businesses. Furthermore, our assignment also included an investigation into whether the Act in this respect presented an impedement for em- ployees complaining about serious maladministration at their places of work. Definition of the term 'business secret' The definition of 'business secret' contained in the Act is broad and flexible. It is technology neutral in relation to the means of docu- mentation as regards business secrets that have been documented. It has been said that research companies find it particularly difficult to protect their business secrets because their ideas and concepts are to a significant extent based on the knowledge of their employees. However, such information as mentioned here is also covered by the definition, provided that the other conditions are satisfied as well. What probably causes particular problems for know- ledge-oriented undertakings instead are the difficulties in certain cases of drawing a line between what business secrets comprise and what should instead be classed as an employee's personal skill, experience and knowledge. We consider that an amendment that facilitates such demarcation would entail a restriction on the opportunities for individuals to freely utilise their experience and knowledge and thereby counteract the socioeconomic interest of facilitating the free flow of knowledge. We do not consider such an amendment to be desirable. We also consider that there is no other reasonable or possible solution than to allow a business operator to decide which infor- mation is to be secret and to actually keep it secret. Other pre- conditions for the FHL being applicable are sufficient to ensure that the Act only protects such information as is, from an objective perspective, worthy of protection. In summary, we do not consider that there is any cause to propose any amendments to the definition. However, we consider that there is a need to supplement the definition with a new third paragraph. We shall report on this proposal in the next section. Has the Act been an obstacle? It is difficult for several reasons to respond to the question of whether the FHL has been an obstacle to employees complaining about and exposing serious maladministration at their own places of work. We consider that the Act per se does not as such imply any such obstacle. Instead, the obligations of employees not to disclose any matters concerning the workplace are connected to the duty of loyalty that accompanies an employment relationship. The rules contained in Section 2, first and second paragraphs of the FHL comprise, as regards the kinds of information referred to in the provision, an exception to the employee's duty of confidentiality under a special confidentiality agreement or owing to the general duty of loyalty. This involves such matters that may be suspected of constituting a criminal offence for which imprisonment may be imposed or matters that may be deemed to constitute some other serious maladministration in the business operator's business. A critical stance has been adopted in certain quarters regarding the impact of the Act on the opportunities of employees to express their views. However, it is difficult to express an opinion on the scale of this criticism or the extent to which it is based on knowledge of the content of the Act in this respect. One aspect of this may be that the consequences of the FHL and the consequences of con- tractual confidentiality and competition or the general duty of loyalty are not always abundantly clear to the individual. Currently, the term 'business secret' does not embrace information about a circumstance that constitutes a criminal offence or which may otherwise be unacceptable from a public perspective. In order to clarify the matter, we propose that a new third paragraph be introduced into Section 1 of the FHL, whereby information about a circumstance that constitutes a criminal offence or other serious maladministration will never constitute a 'business secret'. We also think that there is a need to clarify in the statutory text that the Act does not apply if it would conflict with the provisions on freedom of the press or freedom of expression contained in the Freedom of the Press Act or the Fundamental on Freedom of Expression. Such a reminder, which should be incorporated in a new paragraph in Section 2 of the FHL, is intended to remind those applying the Act to consider whether the alleged attack is such that it falls within the area protected by the fundamental laws (Constitution). Scope of criminal liability The Inquiry was assigned the task of analysing whether the penal provisions contained in the FHL have been worded in a fit for purpose. We were also required to pay particular attention in this context to the issue of whether criminal liability should be extended to also cover a person who, without authorisation, uses or discloses a business secret to which they gained access within the scope of their duties. This remit has also included adopting a position on whether the range of penalties for offences under the Act is appropriate. Is there any reason to extend criminal liability? The business operator whose business secrets are attacked may incur considerable losses. Attacks on business secrets (whether to gain access, exploit or pass on information) also involve the distortion of competition to the detriment of society as a whole. Those working within the business operator's business must often have access to business secrets to perform their duties, which may put the business operator into a vulnerable situation. The judgment in the 'case' demonstrates deficiencies in the current rules. This case involved, among other things, an employee who had access to business secrets in their work and who disclosed them to another person who in their turn disclosed them to Russian intelligence agents. The prosecution of the employee for participating in grave corporate espionage was rejected, while the person who provided the details to the agents was sentenced to eight years in prison for grave espionage. The Swedish Criminal Code contains provisions whereby an employee's attack on business secrets, to which they have access in their work, is punishable in certain situations. However, subject to some exceptions, these provisions are not designed with the direct intention of criminalising such an attack, but instead are directed at other kinds of conduct. This means that it can often be difficult to assess whether or not a particular attack on a business secret is punishable under the Swedish Criminal Code. This is obviously not satisfactory for reasons of legal security. Furthermore, the principle of legality prevents the extensive interpretation of penal provisions. We consider that there is a need to extend criminal responsibility under the FHL so that it also covers certain unauthorised disclosures and the use of business secrets effected by persons with lawful access to the secret; for example, employees. A new penal provision We propose an extension of criminal liability to cover a person who has gained access to a business s business because of employment, an assignment or similar reasons. Besides the business operator's employees, employees from employment agencies, certain consultants, directors and auditors will be covered by the pro- posed provision. Persons of the kind referred to here could consequently be punished if they unlawfully disclose or unlawfully use in a business operation a business secret to which they have gained access as a result of such participation in the business operator's business, as referred to above. Attempts and preparation to commit such acts will also be punishable. In minor cases, liability shall not be imposed for unlawful use or unlawful disclosure of an employer's business secret. For acts com- mitted after the basis for participation in the business operator's business has ceased, liability shall only be imposed if the perpetrator has acted in a particularly disloyal way or if the act is considered to comprise a grave offence. 'Particularly disloyal conduct' refers, for instance, to the perpetrator having prepared the attack during the period of employment, having accepted the employment or assign- ment, etc. with a view to attack business secrets or having occupied a particular position of trust. Liability under this provision shall never arise if more than two years have elapsed from the time when the basis for participation in the operation ceased. The penalty for unlawful disclosure and unlawful use of a business secret should be a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two The penalty for a serious offence should be imprisonment for a minimum of six months and a maximum of six years. Other proposed amendments to the penal provisions We propose that Section 4 of the FHL is amended so that those acquiring a business secret from someone who commits an offence under the proposed new penal provision can also be sentenced for the unlawful handling of a business secret. Furthermore, we propose that a minimum penalty of six months should be introduced into the range of penalties for serious corporate espionage. We do not consider that there is any need for other amendments to the range of penalties. The Inquiry has been assigned the task of deliberating on the pro- visions of the Act concerning damages, including whether the provisions on employees liability to pay damages should be extended to cover agency staff. The review has also covered the issue of the basis for calculating damages as a result of violations of the Act and, in particular, whether it would be better to calculate the damages on the basis of a notional licence charge; that is to say, by applying the model used in the area of intellectual property. The wording and scope of liability to pay damages We consider that there is insufficient reason to amend the structure of the provisions on damages so that they are based on the nature of the attack instead of on the attacker's relationship to the business operator. However, there should be certain amendments to the provisions on damages, primarily because of the proposed extension of criminal liability. According to our proposal, the provision on damages contained in Section 5 of the FHL should be amended so that it also covers anyone who commits an offence under the new penal provision (Section 3 a). We propose that an employee should only be subject to a liability to pay damages under the FHL for negligent acts if the conduct took place during the course of employment. The same rules should also apply to those other people who are also covered by the new penal provision proposed. We would emphasise that anyone covered by the proposed Section 3 a, although they are not employees of the business operator subject to an attack, provided they are in a situation comparable to that of an employee, should be equated to employees as regards the rules on adjustment of damages. A classic example of this is a person employed by an employment agency. Through these proposed provisions, which will change the criminal law and the private law on damages, the disclosure of business secrets by directors and auditors will also constitute such an attack under the Act as referred to in Section 8 of the FHL. A recipient who in bad faith uses or discloses a business secret that has been disclosed by a director or an auditor of a limited company will consequently be ordered under Section 8 of the FHL to compensate for the loss incurred. It is neither appropriate nor possible to replace Section 9 of the FHL with a rule prescribing that damages should be calculated with reference to notional reasonable compensation for the use of the business secret. There is much to suggest that the wording of the current statutory provision already makes it possible to calculate damages on the basis of a notional licence charge for the business secret used. However, the wording of Section 9 of the FHL and the statements made in the provision's travaux préparatoires provide opportunities for also taking other relevant grounds into account when calculating damages. To select just one of these grounds and refer to it expressly in the statutory wording would give the im- pression that this method should be given priority over other alternative means of calculation. would it, in the opinion of the Inquiry, be an improvement to specify in the statutory wording, in the way proposed for intellectual property laws, certain alternative grounds for calculation. Taking this into account and the fact that Section 9 of the FHL largely appears to have functioned well in practice, we do not consider that there is any reason to make any amendment to this section. The Inquirys Terms of Reference in this respect was to adopt a position as regards whether provisions on investigation of evidence should be introduced into the FHL, in which connection we also had to take into account 's international commitments. Is a measure to secure evidence required in connection with an attack on business secrets? The TRIPS Agreement means that has an obligation to provide rapid and effective interim measures to preserve evidence of relevance for attacks on business secrets. The Inquiry considers it doubtful whether this obligation can be deemed to have been completely implemented in current Swedish legislation. We consider that there is a need to introduce a measure within the FHL for securing evidence. A regulation must maintain high demands for legal security, particularly for those subject to such an investigation. Rules concerning a new measure for securing evidence should be introduced into the FHL We propose that rules concerning a new measure for securing evi- dence are introduced into the FHL. This protective measure should be formulated in a way basically corresponding to the provision on infringement investigations in the case of infringements of intellectual property. The measure, which should be called an 'investigation of evidence', means that, on application, a court can decide that an investigation to search for evidence may be conducted at the premises of a person who may reasonably be assumed to have attacked a business secret under the FHL. Investigation of evidence may only be conducted at the premises of the suspected attacker and con- sequently not at that of a third party. A search may be made for objects and documents that may be deemed relevant to the investigation. However, the investigation may not include written documents covered by the 'seizure pro- hibition' contained in Chapter 27, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. Preconditions for conducting an investigation of evidence The business operator whose business secret is suspected of being the subject of an unauthorised attack shall be entitled to make an application for an investigation of evidence. Such an application shall be considered by the court. For a court to grant an application for an investigation of evidence, it is required that there is reasonable cause to assume that someone has attacked a business secret as referred to in the FHL. However, an investigation of evidence may only be granted if the reason for the measure outweighs the inconvenience or any other detriment that the measure would involve for the person adversely affected by it or any other opposing interest. In order for a decision for an investigation of evidence to be issued, the applicant must provide security (collateral) for the damage that the other party may be caused. A decision for an investigation of evidence must contain details of the purpose of the investigation, the objects and documents that may be searched for and the areas that may be searched. If necessary, the court may also order other enforcement conditions. The court shall also have the power to issue a decision for an investigation of evidence without any prior questioning of the other party.