Use case · Transmission
Controlled transmission to former partners
Twenty years of history, four named successors, archives that do not transmit themselves by default. The scenario where cessation is already in the past, but where access to the archives still needs to be settled between former partners, spouses, heirs or post-mortem agents.
The setting
You were four partners in a company that ran for twenty years. You wound it up amicably five years ago — dissolution, liquidation, removal from the register. Accounts were settled, the surplus split, the offices handed back. But one thing did not get sorted: the archives. Twenty years of mail, client contracts, HR files, plans, databases, accounting correspondence. None of you really wanted to throw them out — each of you wanted them accessible “just in case”.
Five years on, the topic resurfaces. One of the partners has died; his widow holds the share of archives he was entitled to, but with no clear framework or operational access. Another has a brewing dispute with a former client asking for a contractual document — he needs to retrieve it quickly. A third is considering publishing some of the content in a book: does he have the right, and with whom?
The question is no longer how to close down a company. It is how to organise the controlled transmission of already-existing archives toward a circle of people whose composition evolves over time — what should have been done at closure, and was not.
Transmission is not an event, it is a framework. Without a framework, every access request becomes a four-way negotiation — and nobody decides.
- 20 years of history
- 4 named successors
- ~180 GB of archives concerned
- 10 years target retention
What is at stake
- Identifying the successors. Living former partners, surviving spouses, heirs of the deceased partner, possible post-cessation agent. The French Digital Republic Act of 2016 recognises the explicit designation of a digital successor — that mechanism prevails over default succession rules.
- The voting rule. Four successors with divergent interests (one wants to consult, one wants to publish, one wants to block, one just wants to know) cannot decide without a frame. Collegial vote — simple majority, qualified majority, unanimity, veto right — settles disputes upstream.
- Post-mortem GDPR framework. For as long as the data exists, a controller exists. Five years after registry removal, by default it is one of the former partners who carries the role. An organised transmission to an archive trustee transfers that responsibility — see GDPR after cessation.
- Mutual protection of beneficiaries. Named access grants and the operations register discourage opportunistic use. Each successor knows the others see their requests — a symmetry that defuses tensions.
- Execution over the long run. Transmission is not a one-off act: it unfolds over ten or twenty years, with events (death, divorce, dispute, third-party request) that change the group's composition. The contract must specify how the list of grantees gets updated without any single person being able to alter it.
How Archivum operates
- 1
Scoping the transmission
Identification of successors, civil-identity verification, inventory of concerned archives. If an event (death, ongoing succession) is involved, coordination with the relevant notary. Detailed quote, then a multi-party contract.
- 2
Defining the voting rule
The contract sets the applicable mechanics: required majority (simple, qualified, unanimity), quorum, possible veto rights, voting deadlines, default scenario in case of deadlock. Modifying the voting rule itself follows the rule — never unilaterally.
- 3
Recovery and indexing of existing archives
If archives are scattered (former director's NAS, personal cloud accounts, external drives), we coordinate consolidation. Storage on sovereign French infrastructure, indexing per file and per historical contributor, cryptographic fingerprint for each item.
- 4
Named grants and register
Each successor receives an access grant with a defined scope (consultation, retrieval, vote on end-of-period arbitration). Every action carried out under a grant is recorded in a register consultable by the other successors.
- 5
Executing requests over time
A request for access, retrieval or grant extension triggers a vote under the agreed rule. Notification, ballot, quorum check, application of the result. Everything is logged. If an event (death, loss of contact) changes the composition, the list is updated by vote — not by unilateral decision.
- 6
End-of-period arbitration
Three months before the contractual deadline, successors are notified and decide collegially between extension, deletion and transfer — see end-of-period arbitration.
Ten years on
The successors named in the contract — refreshed under the voting rule — decide collegially.
Extension
New period, same signatories or updated list. For archives of historical or patrimonial value, extension is often the default scenario.
Deletion
Secure destruction, certificate issued to the successors. A rare decision in transmission cases: it usually requires unanimity.
Transfer to the trustee
Archivum inherits contractually all or part of the archives, releasing the successors from future charges. Exploitation terms set in the contract.
How much it costs
For a typical setting — four successors, ~180 GB of archives, ten-year retention with arbitration every five years, qualified-majority voting rule with veto — over ten years, the order of magnitude is a few thousand euros per year. The marginal cost of each vote or retrieval operation is included in the pricing grid — no per-act billing. The final price is set in a quote after scoping.
Scope your case
The most efficient path, especially with several successors, is to talk for an hour together — or with a competent notary if the transmission is tied to a succession. We validate identities, perimeter and voting rule; you walk away with a draft contract to sign collegially.