Take-Aways (AI)
  • The Data Pro­tec­tion Act (DPA) also applies in the run-up to civil pro­ce­e­dings; it is neces­sa­ry to check whe­ther requests for infor­ma­ti­on are being used to obtain evi­dence in abu­se of the law.
  • Banks are gene­ral­ly obli­ged to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on about inter­nal per­so­nal data unless the data coll­ec­tor can demon­stra­te over­ri­ding inte­rests wort­hy of protection.

Rega­lia:

Art. 2 para. 2 lit. c, Art. 8 and 9 apa­ra. 3 (in the ver­si­on appli­ca­ble sin­ce 1 Decem­ber 2010: para. 4) FADP, Art. 2 CC. Obli­ga­ti­on of a bank to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on on bank-inter­nal per­so­nal data con­cer­ning customers.
Scope of appli­ca­ti­on of the Data Pro­tec­tion Act in the run-up to civil pro­ce­e­dings, name­ly when the alle­ga­ti­on is made of a pro­scri­bed search for evi­dence, and rela­ti­on­ship to the pos­si­bi­li­ty of reque­st­ing a pre­cau­tio­na­ry taking of evi­dence (E. 4). Exami­na­ti­on of whe­ther the request for infor­ma­ti­on is being exer­cis­ed in a man­ner that is con­tra­ry to its pur­po­se and thus abu­si­ve of the law in light of the objec­ti­ves of the Data Pro­tec­tion Act (E. 5). In casu, the data controller’s own over­ri­ding inte­rests justi­fy­ing a refu­sal to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on have not been demon­stra­ted (E. 6).

Source: BGE 138 III 425