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”.