BGE 141 III 119: Right to infor­ma­ti­on; sur­ren­der of copies


Art. 8 para. 5, Art. 9 para. 1 and 4 FADP, Art. 1 para. 3 FADP, Art. 47 BankA; obli­ga­ti­on of a bank to pro­vi­de its (for­mer) employees with writ­ten infor­ma­ti­on on per­so­nal data con­cer­ning them that has been trans­mit­ted to the Ame­ri­can authorities.
In the pre­sent case, the bank (owner of the data collec­tion) can­not invo­ke a basis in a law in the for­mal sen­se (cf. Art. 9 para. 1 lit. a FADP) to refu­se to hand over copies of the dis­puted data to the employees (E. 5).
The­re is no over­ri­ding inte­rest of third par­ties wit­hin the mea­ning of Art. 9 (1) b FADP (E. 6).
A balan­cing of inte­rests wit­hin the mea­ning of Art. 9 para. 4 FADP shows that in the pre­sent case the employees’ inte­rest in recei­ving a copy of the dis­puted data out­weighs the bank’s inte­rest in restric­ting the employees’ right to infor­ma­ti­on (E. 7).
The court left open the que­sti­on of whe­ther, apart from the cases pro­vi­ded for in Art. 1 para. 3 of the Federal Data Pro­tec­tion Act, other excep­ti­ons to the princip­le of pro­vi­ding infor­ma­ti­on in wri­ting could be con­si­de­red, sin­ce the bank did not assert any spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stance that would pre­vent it from pro­vi­ding a copy of the data in dis­pu­te (E. 8).

Source: BGE 141 III 119