Moti­on SKP‑N (19.3961): Inclu­si­on of case manage­ment mea­su­res in the tasks of the bodies ent­ru­sted with the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the Fede­ral Acci­dent Insu­rance Act

Moti­on SKP‑N (19.3961): Inclu­si­on of case manage­ment mea­su­res in the tasks of the bodies ent­ru­sted with the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the Fede­ral Acci­dent Insu­rance Act

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to sub­mit a draft amend­ment to the Fede­ral Law of March 20, 1981 on Acci­dent Insu­rance (UVG), with the Case manage­ment mea­su­res inclu­ded in the sta­tu­to­ry duties of the bodies ent­ru­sted with the imple­men­ta­ti­on of this Act. be made. In view of this, the amend­ment also crea­tes the legal basis for pro­ce­s­sing per­so­nal data, inclu­ding per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion and per­so­na­li­ty pro­files. For such data pro­ce­s­sing, the con­sent of the data sub­ject shall be requi­red. The con­sent must be given in wri­ting or in ano­ther form that allo­ws pro­of by text.

In the event that the revi­si­on of the Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Act (FADP) is adopted, a legal basis for pro­fil­ing within the mea­ning of the new FADP should be pro­vi­ded instead of a legal basis for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­na­li­ty profiles.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Case manage­ment mea­su­res are not part of the cata­log of tasks under the UVG. Con­se­quent­ly, the bodies ent­ru­sted with the imple­men­ta­ti­on of this Act can­not rely on this Act for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data with regard to such mea­su­res. In this case, exclu­si­ve­ly Artic­le 17(2)(c) DPA appli­ca­ble. The acci­dent insu­r­ers may thus use per­so­nal data for case manage­ment mea­su­res Only excep­tio­nal­ly and after obtai­ning con­sent pro­cess the data sub­ject in the indi­vi­du­al case. The­se requi­re­ments impair the effec­ti­ve­ness of the mea­su­res and threa­ten to pre­vent their deve­lo­p­ment and the asso­cia­ted bene­fits for the insu­rance com­pa­nies and the data subjects.

For the case manage­ment mea­su­res, par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data must be pro­ce­s­sed, but per­so­na­li­ty pro­files must also be crea­ted. The legal basis for pro­ce­s­sing must the­r­e­fo­re also include the­se spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data.

The draft revi­si­on of the DPA abo­lishes the con­cept of per­so­na­li­ty pro­fi­le and intro­du­ces the con­cept of pro­fil­ing. If the draft revi­si­on is adopted, the legal basis in the DPA must be adapt­ed and “per­so­na­li­ty pro­files” must be repla­ced by “pro­fil­ing”.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be