BGE 139 V 492: Inhe­ri­ta­bi­li­ty of the right to infor­ma­ti­on under DPA 8; rela­ti­on­ship bet­ween pro­ce­du­ral rights to inspect files and the right to infor­ma­ti­on under data pro­tec­tion law:

EN 
EN  DE  FR 

from

on

Indu­stries

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Laws

Topics

, ,
Take-Aways (AI)
  • The right to infor­ma­ti­on under data pro­tec­tion law (Art. 8 DSG / §20 para. 2 IDG) exists inde­pendent­ly of claims under insu­rance law.
  • The right to infor­ma­ti­on under data pro­tec­tion law and access to files under pro­ce­du­ral law are inde­pen­dent, non-con­gru­ent claims, each with their own requirements.
  • Access to files only estab­lishes pro­ce­du­ral rights to pur­sue social insu­rance claims; wit­hout fur­ther inte­rests wort­hy of pro­tec­tion, no addi­tio­nal data pro­tec­tion dimension.

BGE 139 V 492: Inhe­ri­ta­bi­li­ty of the right to infor­ma­ti­on under DSG 8; Rela­ti­on­ship bet­ween pro­ce­du­ral rights to inspect files and the right to infor­ma­ti­on under data pro­tec­tion law:

Howe­ver, this is not the case: the right to infor­ma­ti­on under Art. 8 of the Fede­ral Act of 19 June 1992 on Data Pro­tec­tion (FADP; SR 235.1) or, in the pre­sent con­text, under § 20 para. 2 of the Can­to­nal Law of 12 Febru­ary 2007 on Infor­ma­ti­on and Data Pro­tec­tion (IDG; LS 170.4) exists inde­pendent­ly of claims under insu­rance law (see BGE 123 II 534 E. 2e p. 538). The Howe­ver, the right to infor­ma­ti­on under data pro­tec­tion law and the right to inspect files under pro­ce­du­ral law are inde­pen­dent claims that are not con­gru­ent in terms of scope and requi­re­ments, i.e. each has its own spe­cial scope of appli­ca­ti­on that is not cover­ed by the other cla­im. (BGE 125 II 473 E. 4a p. 475). The data pro­tec­tion cla­im applies (only) to the ext­ent that it cor­re­sponds to the rele­vant objec­ti­ves. The right to infor­ma­ti­on under Art. 8 DPA is inten­ded to enable the data sub­ject to exer­cise his other data pro­tec­tion rights (BGE 125 II 473 E. 4b p. 476; GRAMIGNA/MAURER-LAMBROU, in: Bas­ler Kom­men­tar, Daten­schutz­ge­setz, Mau­rer-Lamb­rou/­Vogt [ed.], 2nd ed. 2006, N. 1 f. on Art. 8 FADP; DAVID ROSENTHAL, in: Hand­kom­men­tar zum Daten­schutz­ge­setz, Rosenthal/Jöhri [ed.], 2008, N. 1 on Art. 8 FADP). Here, the inspec­tion of files is based exclu­si­ve­ly on the pur­su­it of a cla­im under social secu­ri­ty law, i.e. of a pro­ce­du­ral natu­re (Art. 20 para. 3 FADP; cf. also BGE 127 V 219 E. 1b p. 223). If no fur­ther legal­ly pro­tec­ted inte­rests are pur­sued, the inspec­tion of files has no addi­tio­nal dimen­si­on under data pro­tec­tion law.