DPA revi­si­on: deli­be­ra­ti­ons com­ple­ted – final vote expec­ted at the end of the week

On Sep­tem­ber 23, 2020, the Coun­cil of Sta­tes first voted in the mor­ning on the remai­ning Dif­fe­ren­ces advi­se. It adhe­res to its Decis­i­on from June 2, 2020 majority:

• The con­cept of the Pro­fil­ing with high risk (Art. 4^fbis E‑DSG) should remain ancho­red in the law; in this sen­se, not only in the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion, but also in pro­fil­ing by a fede­ral body and pre­cis­e­ly also in pro­fil­ing with a high risk at the Expli­cit requi­re­ment for con­sent(Art. 5 (7) E‑DSG), if con­sent is required.
• Justi­fi­ca­ti­on for cre­dit checks (Art. 27 lit. c No. 1 E‑DSG): If the data con­trol­ler pro­ce­s­ses per­so­nal data for the pur­po­se of cre­dit­wort­hi­ness checks, such pro­ce­s­sing shall only be in the over­ri­ding inte­rest of the data con­trol­ler if it does not invol­ve per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion or profiling.

The Coun­cil of Sta­tes fol­lo­wed the Natio­nal Coun­cil in only one point: Per­so­nal data for the pur­po­se of cre­dit checks should be allo­wed to be tra­ced back for ten years and not just five years, as ori­gi­nal­ly pro­po­sed by the Fede­ral Coun­cil, in order to still be cover­ed by an over­ri­ding inte­rest of the per­son responsible.

Sub­se­quent­ly, the Uni­fi­ca­ti­on Con­fe­rence suc­cessful­ly car­ri­ed out. The result has not been published, but at least the­re is much to sug­gest that it has endor­sed the posi­ti­on of the Coun­cil of Sta­tes. The results of the uni­fi­ca­ti­on con­fe­rence will be dis­cus­sed by the coun­cils tomor­row and are expec­ted to be decided.

The Final vote on the cor­re­spon­ding bill is expec­ted to fol­low on Fri­day this week (Sep­tem­ber 25, 2020).