Moti­on Leu­ten­eg­ger-Ober­hol­zer (08.3852): Fede­ral data coll­ec­tions. Right to information
Rejec­ted (03.03.2010)

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is reque­sted to ensu­re that in all fede­ral data coll­ec­tions, the per­sons con­cer­ned have a right of access to the data coll­ec­ted in accordance with Artic­les 8 and 9 of the Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Act. In par­ti­cu­lar, the rest­ric­tion on the right to infor­ma­ti­on in the Fede­ral Offen­ces System in Artic­le 8 and Artic­le 11(6) of the Fede­ral Act on Fede­ral Poli­ce Infor­ma­ti­on Systems and Artic­le 18 BWIS must be adapt­ed accordingly.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

The Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on main­ta­ins various data coll­ec­tions on indi­vi­du­als for secu­ri­ty poli­cy rea­sons. Expe­ri­ence with the Fichen­scan­dal of the eighties/nineties has shown that coll­ec­tions of per­so­nal data invol­ve the risk of fal­se ent­ries and inef­fi­ci­en­ci­es. For the per­sons con­cer­ned, the ent­ries can have serious con­se­quen­ces. It is the­r­e­fo­re all the more important that the per­son con­cer­ned has an indi­vi­du­al right to infor­ma­ti­on. This also makes cor­rec­tions possible.

Various laws now only pro­vi­de for a so-cal­led indi­rect right of inspec­tion, which actual­ly does not allow any inspec­tion at all. The indi­rect right of inspec­tion has not pro­ven its worth. The case of the fiched coun­cil­lors from Basel-Stadt also shows once again that wit­hout the right of inspec­tion, cor­rec­tions to incor­rect ent­ries can­not be made, as the accu­ra­cy of the ent­ries can­not be veri­fi­ed. This also fun­da­men­tal­ly calls into que­sti­on the qua­li­ty of the data collections.

It must the­r­e­fo­re be ensu­red that in all data coll­ec­tions, the per­sons con­cer­ned are gran­ted a right to infor­ma­ti­on in accordance with the prin­ci­ples of the Data Pro­tec­tion Act. Artic­le 9 of the Data Pro­tec­tion Act also pro­vi­des suf­fi­ci­ent safe­guards for secu­ri­ty-rela­ted data. Other Euro­pean count­ries, such as France, also have a fun­da­men­tal right of access for data sub­jects to the data coll­ec­ted about them.

<

h1>Statement of the Fede­ral Council

<

h1>

Accor­ding to Artic­le 8 of the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion of 19 June 1992 (FADP, SR 235.1), any per­son may request infor­ma­ti­on from the owner of a data coll­ec­tion as to whe­ther data about him or her is being pro­ce­s­sed. The right to infor­ma­ti­on is a basic prin­ci­ple of data pro­tec­tion, which enables the per­son con­cer­ned to check the data with regard to the lawful­ness of the acqui­si­ti­on, the pre­ser­va­ti­on of good faith and pro­por­tio­na­li­ty in the pro­ce­s­sing as well as the accu­ra­cy of the data (Mes­sa­ge FADP, BBl 1988 II 433). In cer­tain cases, howe­ver, the pro­vi­si­on of infor­ma­ti­on is rest­ric­ted, in par­ti­cu­lar if over­ri­ding pri­va­te or public inte­rests con­flict with such pro­vi­si­on or if a law in the for­mal sen­se so pro­vi­des (Art. 9 FADP).

In the Fede­ral Act on Mea­su­res to Safe­guard Inter­nal Secu­ri­ty of 21 March 1997 (BWIS, SR 120), the right to infor­ma­ti­on has been rest­ric­ted for some time; its Artic­le 18 estab­lishes a mere­ly indi­rect right to infor­ma­ti­on. The rest­ric­tion of the right to infor­ma­ti­on was recent­ly dis­cus­sed in detail again on the occa­si­on of the crea­ti­on of the Fede­ral Law on Fede­ral Poli­ce Infor­ma­ti­on Systems of 13 June 2008 (BPI, SR 361) and, in com­pa­ri­son with Artic­le 18 BWIS, was also estab­lished in Artic­le 8 BPI in a wea­k­en­ed form (direct right to infor­ma­ti­on with the pos­si­bi­li­ty of post­po­ning the ans­wer in cer­tain cases) and limi­t­ed to a nar­row scope, name­ly to fede­ral offen­ces. In addi­ti­on, Artic­le 11(6) BPI allo­ws per­so­nal data to be coll­ec­ted wit­hout the know­ledge of the data sub­jects if important law enforce­ment inte­rests requi­re it. Howe­ver, if the acqui­si­ti­on of the data is not appa­rent to the data sub­ject, the data sub­ject must be infor­med as soon as the rea­son for sec­re­cy has cea­sed to exist and this infor­ma­ti­on does not invol­ve a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort.

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is of the opi­ni­on that the direc­tion taken with the crea­ti­on of Artic­le 8 BPI should be pur­sued fur­ther. It is pre­pared to review the pro­vi­si­ons on the right to infor­ma­ti­on in the BWIS and the BPI in the spi­rit of the moti­on and to stri­ve for a regu­la­ti­on in the spi­rit of the moti­on. In view of the gre­at importance of the right to infor­ma­ti­on for data pro­tec­tion, any rest­ric­tion must in any case be limi­t­ed to what is abso­lut­e­ly neces­sa­ry in terms of time and sub­ject mat­ter, which is also empha­si­zed by the Fede­ral Supre­me Court and fur­ther­mo­re by the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights (see BGE 125 II 473 E. 4c; ECtHR judgment of June 6, 2006, Seger­stedt-Wiberg and others v. Swe­den, No. 62332/00, para. 88). Against this back­ground, the indi­rect right to infor­ma­ti­on is fun­da­men­tal­ly pro­ble­ma­tic. It does not cor­re­spond to a genui­ne right to infor­ma­ti­on. In prin­ci­ple, the Fede­ral Coun­cil the­r­e­fo­re shares the view of the mover of the moti­on that in the case of all data coll­ec­tions, inclu­ding tho­se in the are­as of inter­nal secu­ri­ty and poli­ce infor­ma­ti­on, the per­sons con­cer­ned must be gran­ted a right to infor­ma­ti­on in accordance with Artic­le 8 FADP and that the excep­ti­ons to this must be deter­mi­ned within the frame­work of Artic­le 9 FADP. Any spe­cial legal regu­la­ti­ons must be kept to a minimum.

Con­sul­ting