The Federal Administrative Court (BVGer) has partially upheld an appeal against a decision by the State Secretariat for International Financial Matters (SIF) (A‑2652/2025, dated August 11, 2026). The issue in dispute was access to internal correspondence regarding Uzbekistan’s re-entry into the voting rights group led by Switzerland at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In a recommendation dated February 21, 2025, the EDÖB had recommended granting access to content relating to the SNB and to personal data, provided that such information did not concern foreign government officials. The SIF did not comply with this recommendation and granted access to five emails only in redacted form. Among other things, the redactions covered the names of employees of the Federal Administration and the Swiss National Bank (SNB), as well as certain passages of text. The Federal Administrative Court […]
Art. 2, para. 2 of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information: A mere mention of the SNB is not covered
The SIF initially argued that the SNB is exempt from the scope of the Access to Government Information Act (Art. 2(2) of the Act). This exemption, it contended, must also apply to information relating to the SNB contained in third-party documents, including the personal data of its employees. In its recommendation, the FDPIC had argued as follows.
The FDPIC considered that, according to the clear wording of Art. 2, para. 2 of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information (BGÖ), the Act does not apply to the SNB and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). This reservation applies to the entire statute, including the defining characteristics of an official document (Art. 5 of the Freedom of Information Act). Legal scholarship concludes from this that documents transmitted by the SNB or FINMA to an authority subject to the Freedom of Information Act do not become official documents within the meaning of that Act. By law, the receiving authority must treat such documents as confidential. There is no right of access to them. By contrast, documents created by an authority subject to the Freedom of Information Act and subsequently submitted to the SNB would, or those that served on an administrative unit by third parties and, at the same time, on the SNB would. In this regard, neither the law nor the materials accompanying the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to such documents. The same applies to official documents in which the SNB merely mentioned will become, or which of the SNB delivered retroactively would.
The Federal Administrative Court concurs. The exceptions granted to the SNB and FINMA are based exclusively on political and historical grounds, and legal scholarship takes a critical view of Art. 2, para. 2 of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information:
According to the FDPIC, Art. 2(2) of the Federal Act on Access to Government Documents (BGÖ) must therefore be interpreted narrowly, at least with regard to the personal data requested by the complainants, since these are not documents of the SNB and, in view of its constitutionally guaranteed independence, do not pertain to any further information from the SNB in connection with its activities. This information therefore falls within the personal scope of the Freedom of Information Act. It remains open whether (in addition to the personal data) other information concerning the SNB falls outside the personal scope of application of Art. 2(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, since an exception applies in this regard anyway, as will be shown below (see E. 7 below).
In this regard, the Federal Administrative Court relies in particular on the FAQ from the Federal Office of Justice and the Federal Data Protection Commissioner on the Implementation of the Principle of Public Access in the Federal Administration (Section 2.21):
Answer: When drafting the Freedom of Information Act, the legislature opted for a system of exceptions based on a balancing of the interests at stake in each specific case (Art. 7 FOIA), rather than a system of exceptions to the scope of the Act. The exclusions of the Swiss National Bank and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority from the scope of the Act are based solely on political and historical grounds (Art. 2, para. 2 of the Swiss Freedom of Information Act). They therefore have no substantive basis.
The provision must therefore be «interpreted narrowly, at least with regard to the personal data requested by the complainants,» because the documents in question do not belong to the SNB and no other information from the SNB related to its activities is involved. The names of SNB employees do not fall under Art. 2(2) of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information (BGÖ). The court expressly leaves open whether other information relating to the SNB falls outside the scope of the Act, since an exception applies in this regard anyway.
Foreign Policy Interests: Redactions Confirmed
The Federal Administrative Court upholds the redactions made pursuant to Art. 7(1)(d) of the Federal Access to Government Information Act. The case apparently involved documents directly related to Uzbekistan and to foreign policy Switzerland’s activities within the IMF and the „IMF Voting Rights Group,“ which an insight into Internal correspondence from Swiss authorities regarding the resumption of would place Uzbekistan in the Swiss voting group on the IMF side. If this were disclosed, it would likely result in There is a real risk of a negative impact on cooperation between Switzerland and Uzbekistan. The disclosure of personal data regarding foreign government officials would also be viewed negatively in terms of fostering trust in our joint cooperation.
The application of this exception requires that there be a serious risk of harm:
Switzerland’s foreign policy interests may be compromised if another state could exploit information to be disclosed to Switzerland’s detriment. In particular, this is intended to ensure that Switzerland’s current and future negotiating positions are not weakened (see Art. 7(1)(d) in conjunction with Art. 8(4) of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information). In this regard, the provision covers not only the Switzerland’s positions and argumentsbut other information as well, which could be significant for the progress of the negotiations […]. The same applies if publication could lead to a deterioration in relations with other states or international organizations. For certain sensitive information, diplomatic practice requires the express consent of the other state concerned before it may be disclosed. However, the feared adverse effect resulting from the disclosure of the information must significant be, and there must be a a serious risk of their occurrence exist (see […]).
In the context of Switzerland’s negotiations, this does not refer to an expected outcome of the negotiations, but rather to the fact that the information in and of itself suitable is the one that To weaken Switzerland’s position in the upcoming negotiations and thereby harm Switzerland’s foreign policy interests or international relations. This applies here:
The lower court is correct in stating that the content in question Internal correspondence within Switzerland that concern Uzbekistan’s relations with other countries or internal matters within Uzbekistan itself, as well as assessments — reserved for internal Swissassessments regarding developments in Uzbekistan, the possible motives for rejoining the Swiss voting group — including within the IMF — or other internal matters of foreign states mentioned in the documents. The information is therefore, in and of itself, likely to influence Switzerland’s position in the upcoming negotiations regarding weaken and thereby harm Switzerland’s foreign policy interests or international relations. […]
The same applies to the names of foreign government officials contained therein (personal data as defined in Art. 5(a) [DSG]) and the names of organizations. The
The Specificity of the Risk of Adverse Effects This cooperation is underscored by the fact that the complainants’ legal representative has, in the past, publicly reported on his activities related to Uzbekistan in the international press. It therefore appears that the lower court cannot rule out the possibility that the disclosed information would also reach the states in question and that Uzbekistan (as well as other members of the voting bloc) might, if dissatisfied with Switzerland’s leadership of the voting bloc, decide to withdraw from the Swiss voting bloc, understandable.
Furthermore, the BGÖ does not apply to the records from the conciliation proceedings themselves. The provisions of the VwVG regarding the right to a fair hearing are not directly applicable in conciliation proceedings, and the EDÖB does not issue a ruling but merely makes a recommendation. The constitutional right to a fair hearing therefore does not apply in conciliation proceedings (established case law).
Personal Data of Administrative Employees
As a general rule, personal data in official documents must be anonymized upon disclosure (Art. 9, para. 1, of the Federal Act on Access to Official Documents), with two exceptions:
- Name and Job Title of Administrative staff in official documents; these are generally not subject to the requirement of anonymization. Anyone acting in the performance of a public duty cannot invoke the right to privacy in the same way as a private third party. Disclosure may be waived in such cases only if it would cause, or is highly likely to cause, concrete harm to the individuals concerned. The standard, however, depends on the hierarchical level of the individuals in question.
- If — as in this case — aexpressly requires access to personal data was. In this case, a legal basis for disclosure is required under Art. 9(2) of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information (BGÖ) in conjunction with Art. 36 of the Data Protection Act (DSG). There is no basis under Article 36(1) and (2) of the DSG in the present case, so Article 36(3) of the DSG must be examined (connection to the performance of public duties), although this is already evident from the definition of an official document (Art. 5(1)(c) of the BGÖ).
When disclosing personal data, a balancing of interests must therefore be conducted; in practice, the Federal Administrative Court does not distinguish between Art. 36(6) of the Data Protection Act and Art. 7(2) of the Federal Act on Access to Government Documents:
Since both Art. 7(2) of the Federal Act on Access to Government Information (BGÖ) and Art. 36 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) provide for a balancing of interests, it is justified to weigh the competing public and private interests against one another without strictly distinguishing between the two provisions ([…]).
Go to Interest in the Public Nature of Government:
While the public’s interest in the administration’s affairs carries weight in and of itself, this weight must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the intent and purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, and its significance may vary.
[…].
Go to Interests of the individuals concerned:
When balancing the interests of the individuals concerned, particular consideration must be given to the nature of the data, the role or status of the individual in question, and the severity of the consequences of disclosure for those affected […]. The potential impairment or jeopardy to those interests must to be substantial; it need not necessarily occur, but neither may it appear merely conceivable or (remotely) possible ([…]). […] The risk of serious harm to one’s person must be accompanied by a to some extent is imminent. Consequently, the infringement that is imminent as a result of granting access must substantial Minor, merely unpleasant consequences are not sufficient to establish an overriding private interest, nor is it sufficient if an infringement of personal rights is merely conceivable or remotely possible.
The disclosure of personal data is specifically regulated under data protection law because it removes personal data from the control of the disclosing entity and exposes it to a higher risk. The legislature has addressed this risk abstract is considered elevated, which is why a separate provision was established (Art. 30(1)(c) and Art. 36 of the DSG). However, this abstract risk cannot be taken into account again when balancing interests in the context of an access request, because it has already been incorporated into the statutory provision (the per se requirement for a balancing of interests). To weigh it again would constitute a “double dip.” A specific It is therefore appropriate to charge interest.
Procedure for Disclosing Personal Data: According to case law, a multi-step procedure applies:
- Step 1: A preliminary balancing of interests to determine whether publication of the document is even a possibility or whether it is ruled out from the outset due to overriding public or private interests.
- Step 2: If the possibility of granting access is being considered, the affected third parties must generally be heard so that they can present their interests that would prevent publication. There are two exceptions to this rule: If the preliminary balancing of interests clearly favors publication to such an extent that it cannot seriously be expected that there are still unrecognized private interests; or when the hearing appears disproportionate, particularly because it would entail an excessive burden or because it „would come into an irreconcilable conflict with the fundamental purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, which is to ensure transparency in administrative activities“ (Federal Supreme Court 1C_50/2015; whatever that means).
- Step 3: Based on this, the final balancing of interests must be carried out and the actual decision must be made.
In this case, the issue concerned personal data of foreign government representatives, but the names of various employees of the Federal Administration and the SNB were also involved; the complainants wanted to know who acted in what official capacity and how. Thus, this does not concern private third parties, and the disclosure of basic personal data such as name, address, date of birth, etc., is generally considered a „minor intrusion.“ The presumption of free access to the requested personal data was therefore not rebutted in this case (subject to the names of foreign government representatives).
In this respect, the appeal is well-founded. The Federal Administrative Court either decides the matter itself or, in exceptional cases, remands it to the lower court with binding instructions (Art. 61(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act). When it comes to issues that specialized expertise require, or if to establish additional facts …it is generally not the role of the Federal Administrative Court to rule as the court of first instance in a specialized field where the considerable discretion of the lower court, which has greater expertise, must be respected. In the present case,
- to conduct another comprehensive preliminary balancing of interests regarding the disclosure of personal data (provided such data does not concern foreign government officials), and
- If necessary, the individuals concerned should be consulted in advance.
The lower court is better suited for this task due to its proximity to the matter at hand; therefore, the case should be remanded to that court for a determination of the facts, a comprehensive preliminary balancing of interests, any necessary hearings, and a subsequent definitive balancing of interests.