- National Council adopts Federal Council proposal: All genetic data is considered personal data worthy of special protection.
- National Council rejects special right to object to profiling by majority.
- Majority wants to delete Council of States concept of “high-risk profiling”; minority wants to retain it.
- In the case of credit checks, the National Council justification concept applies: overriding private interest, provided data ≤10 years and not particularly worthy of protection.
On September 17, 2020, the National Council deliberated on the remaining differences of the revised Data Protection Act (E‑DSG). The Provisional text on the course of the meeting and the results of the voting (Official Bulletin) is under the following link available. The latest published flag with the motions of the National Council’s State Policy Commission of July 2, 2020 can be found at here.
According to the current status, the following points have been adjusted:
- The National Council follows the original proposal of the Federal Council, according to which all genetic data as personal data requiring special protection shall apply (Art. 4 lit. c No. 3 E‑DSG).
- According to the majority no Special right to object to profiling introduced which means that the minority motion, which was submitted in July in the State Policy Commission, is again dropped (cf. Art. 5 para. 8 E‑DSG in the July 2 Flag).
In most points, however, no cleanup followed:
- According to the majority of the National Council, the concept of the Council of States on the High risk profiling to be deleted (Art. 4 lit. fto E‑DSG). A minority follows the Council of States decision of June 2, 2020 and wants to retain the concept.
- A possibly required Consent shall be given only for the Processing of personal data requiring special protection expressly but not – as required by the Council of States – also in the case of profiling by a federal body and, where applicable, high-risk profiling by private persons (Art. 5(7) E‑DSG).
- With regard to the creditworthiness check, the National Council adheres to its concept of justification (Art. 27 lit. c E‑DSG) and deviates from the stricter stance of the Federal Council and the Council of States. A overriding private interest of the responsible person is to be assumed, according to the National Council, if:
- no personal data requiring special protection is processed (the Council of States would also omit such a requirement for high-risk profiling); and
- the processed Personal data not older than ten years (Federal Council and Council of States plead for five years).
The flag with the final decision of the National Council will be posted here after publication. According to the session program, the DPA is also already on the agenda in the Council of States for the current session on September 23. In the National Council, another date is scheduled for September 24, 2020. However, it is currently not known to what extent the National Council will then deliberate again.