OGer BE: Obtai­ning an exter­nal expert opi­ni­on by an insurer does not vio­la­te DSG 35 / DSG 12 II c

First to the Dis­clo­sure pri­vi­le­ge during order pro­ce­s­sing:

aa) First of all, the lower court must be agreed that Art. 14 DPA limits the scope of appli­ca­ti­on of Art. 12 (2) c DPA – and not vice ver­sa. The legal dis­clo­sure pri­vi­le­ge of Art. 14 FADP, which per­mits the dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data to “third par­ties” for the pur­po­se of out­sour­cing, also applies if the data in que­sti­on may not be dis­c­lo­sed to other “third par­ties” within the mea­ning of the FADP under other cir­cum­stances – for exam­p­le, in the case of Art. 12 (2) (c) FADP. This fol­lows from the posi­ti­on of the agent under Art. 14 DPA, which is com­pa­ra­ble to that of an employee in terms of data pro­tec­tion law (Tho­mas Bränd­li, Out­sour­cing – Vertrags‑, Arbeits- und Bank­recht, Diss. Bern 2001, p. 213). It can the­r­e­fo­re be sta­ted with the lower court that the legis­la­tor did not intend to equa­te the third par­ties ent­ru­sted with exter­nal data pro­ce­s­sing within the mea­ning of Art. 14 FADP with the third par­ties men­tio­ned in Art. 12 Para. 2 lit. c FADP (and num­e­rous other pro­vi­si­ons of this law, cf. the list in Bränd­li, loc. cit.). Thus, the pro­hi­bi­ti­on of the dis­clo­sure of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data and per­so­na­li­ty pro­files pur­su­ant to Art. 12 Para. 2 lit. c FADP does not app­ly in the con­text of Art. 14 FADP, as the lat­ter pro­vi­si­on is a lex spe­cia­lis to the for­mer (Ram­pi­ni in Bas­ler Kom­men­tar zum Daten­schutz­ge­setz, 2nd ed., Basel 2006, N 18 on Art. 14 with refe­ren­ces to the doc­tri­ne; id. N 15 on Art. 12).


[pdf-embedder url=“http://datenrecht.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2007.01.18 – 016.pdf”]




Rela­ted articles