Pre­lude to the next round of dif­fe­ren­ces: Pro­po­sals of the Natio­nal Council’s Sta­te Poli­cy Com­mit­tee published

On August 12, 2020, the flag was published with the moti­ons of the Sta­te Poli­cy Com­mis­si­on of the Natio­nal Coun­cil (SPK‑N) of July 2, 2020. The flag can be view­ed at fol­lo­wing link can be retrieved.

The requests rela­te to the fol­lo­wing items:

  • High risk pro­fil­ing (Art. 4fto E‑DSG): A majo­ri­ty is now cal­ling for the pro­vi­si­on, and thus the con­cept of high-risk pro­fil­ing, to be remo­ved from the law altog­e­ther, while a mino­ri­ty is in favor of appro­ving the Coun­cil of Sta­tes’ wording.
  • Requi­re­ment of expli­cit con­sent (Art. 5 (7) E‑DSG): The majo­ri­ty con­ti­nues to adhe­re to its decis­i­on of Sep­tem­ber 25, 2019, accor­ding to which con­sent – if requi­red – should only be expli­cit in the pro­ce­s­sing of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data.
  • New request for an expli­cit right to object to pro­fil­ing (Art. 5 para. 8 E‑DSG): A mino­ri­ty now demands the inclu­si­on of an expli­cit right to object to any form of pro­fil­ing, wher­eby the data sub­jects must be infor­med of this in each case. The data may then not be pro­ce­s­sed fur­ther, unless com­pel­ling rea­sons wort­hy of pro­tec­tion requi­re fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing in the case of increa­sed risk. The decis­i­on on fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing and the rea­sons for it must also be com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the data subject.
  • Pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for the pur­po­se of checking cre­dit­wort­hi­ness as a justi­fi­ca­ti­on ground (Art. 27 para. 2 lit. c E‑DSG): The majo­ri­ty main­ta­ins the decis­i­on of Sep­tem­ber 25, 2019, wher­eby a pri­va­te inte­rest of the data con­trol­ler is given if no par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data is pro­ce­s­sed. The mino­ri­ty moti­on now fol­lows the for­mu­la­ti­on of the Coun­cil of Sta­tes, accor­ding to which a justi­fi­ca­ti­on ground in the afo­re­men­tio­ned con­text is only given if neither par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data nor high-risk pro­fil­ing is invol­ved. With regard to the age of the data, the mino­ri­ty moti­on also fol­lows the Coun­cil of Sta­tes, accor­ding to which the data pro­ce­s­sed in this con­text should not be older than five years. The majo­ri­ty con­ti­nues to adhe­re to the ten years.

The deli­be­ra­ti­ons in the Natio­nal Coun­cil are expec­ted to fol­low in the upco­ming fall ses­si­on (Sep­tem­ber 7 – 25, 2020).

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be