In the present decision, the Federal Supreme Court comments as follows on the right to information under DPA 8:
Furthermore, the complainant claims that she has the right to inspect the files based on Art. 8 FADP in conjunction with Art. 560 Para. Art. 560 para. 2 CC. This cannot be followed. Contrary to the view of the complainant, the right to information under data protection law pursuant to Art. 8 DPA does not pass to the heirs (HÄUPTLI, loc. cit., n. 16a to Art. 560 ZGB; ROSENTHAL/JÖHRI, in: Handkommentar zum Datenschutzgesetz, 2008, n. 5 to Art. 8 DSG). In any case, the right under data protection law 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 or her other data protection rights (BGE 139 V 492 E. 3.2 p. 494 with references). This must also apply to Art. 1 of the Ordinance of 14 June 1993 to the Federal Act on Data Protection (VDSG; SR 235.11), which regulates the modalities of the right to information. The complainant’s request is based exclusively on the pursuit of a claim under inheritance law. In view of this objective, which does not correspond to that of the FADP, the complainant cannot invoke the right to information under data protection law. In this initial situation, it can be left open whether para. 7 of this ordinance provision, which deals, among other things, with the provision of information to close relatives of deceased persons, is lawful (critical of this: HÄUPTLI, loc. cit., n. 16a on Art. 560 ZGB; MAURER-LAMBROU/KUNZ, in: Basler Kommentar, Datenschutzgesetz, 3rd ed. 2014, n. 6 on Art. 2 DSG; PHILIPPE MEIER, Protection des données, 2011, p. 177).
The Federal Supreme Court thus not only states that the right to information is not inheritable. Rather, it reiterates the principles also found in BGE 139 V 492 that the right to information under data protection law only applies to the extent that it corresponds to the relevant objectives.