Moti­on Fia­la (16.3752): Against dupli­ca­ti­ons in data pro­tec­tion: Fede­ral Coun­cil pro­po­ses accep­tance of the motion

NR Doris Fia­la has made a Moti­on 16.3752 (“Against dupli­ca­ti­on in data pro­tec­tion”) pro­po­ses to ins­truct the Fede­ral Council,

[…] in view of the revi­sed Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Act (FADP) and the ent­ry into force of the EU Gene­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Regu­la­ti­on, to seek an agree­ment with the EU on the coor­di­na­ti­on of the appli­ca­ti­on of the respec­ti­ve appli­ca­ble data pro­tec­tion law by the com­pe­tent data pro­tec­tion aut­ho­ri­ties and to hold cor­re­spon­ding explo­ra­to­ry talks with the aim of resol­ving the pro­blems ari­sing from the lack of ter­ri­to­ri­al deli­mi­ta­ti­on of super­vi­so­ry juris­dic­tion in the event of par­al­lel appli­ca­ti­on of the FADP and the DPA for the eco­no­my and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of Switz­er­land and the EU.

We have repor­ted about it. The Fede­ral Coun­cil now pro­po­ses to accept the moti­on, alt­hough it does not belie­ve that the ter­ri­to­ri­al deli­mi­ta­ti­on of super­vi­so­ry juris­dic­tion poses pro­blems. He has on 9.11.16 on this as fol­lows Posi­ti­on taken:

Regu­la­ti­on (EU) 2016/679 on the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and on the free move­ment of such data applies to data pro­ce­s­sing within the scope of the acti­vi­ties of data con­trol­lers or data pro­ces­sors estab­lished in the EU. This applies regard­less of whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing takes place insi­de or out­side the EU. In the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 3(2), the Regu­la­ti­on shall also app­ly, when data con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors not estab­lished in the EU pro­cess data of data sub­jects, which are loca­ted in the EU. The scope of the Regu­la­ti­on and the com­pe­ten­ces of the EU super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties may thus actual­ly extend to pro­ce­s­sing con­trol­lers. Extend to per­sons who are estab­lished in Switz­er­land, when per­so­nal data of indi­vi­du­als loca­ted in the EU are pro­ce­s­sed. Howe­ver, this does not mean that the Euro­pean super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties can inter­ve­ne on the ter­ri­to­ry of Switz­er­land (see in par­ti­cu­lar Art. 55 of the Regu­la­ti­on, accor­ding to which each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is com­pe­tent to exer­cise the powers con­fer­red on it on the ter­ri­to­ry of its own Mem­ber Sta­te). The Fede­ral Coun­cil the­r­e­fo­re does not con­clude, as the motio­ner does, that Regu­la­ti­on (EU) 2016/679 affects the sove­reig­n­ty of Switz­er­land.. On the other hand, it agrees that effi­ci­ent coope­ra­ti­on with a view to good imple­men­ta­ti­on of the respec­ti­ve legis­la­ti­ons in the digi­tal age would be in the inte­rest of both the Swiss aut­ho­ri­ties and the EU aut­ho­ri­ties. For this rea­son, the Fede­ral Coun­cil is pre­pared in due cour­se to Start explo­ra­to­ry talks with the EUas requi­red by the moti­on. Moreo­ver, accor­ding to reci­tal 116 of Regu­la­ti­on (EU) 2016/679, the Com­mis­si­on and the EU super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties are requi­red to coope­ra­te with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of third count­ries. This could pro­vi­de a basis for fur­ther action by Switzerland.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be