Postuat Recor­don (11.4210): costs of inter­cep­ti­on of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons in the con­text of cri­mi­nal proceedings.
20.03.2014: Depre­cia­ti­on in con­nec­tion with the con­sul­ta­ti­on of the busi­ness 13.025

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to com­mis­si­on a stu­dy with alter­na­ti­ves to the cur­rent situa­ti­on in order to dra­sti­cal­ly redu­ce the costs of moni­to­ring tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic in the con­text of cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings, which are char­ged to the inve­sti­ga­ting authorities.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

The costs of moni­to­ring tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic as part of cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings are always a pro­blem: They are often pro­hi­bi­ti­ve. Howe­ver, once the legal requi­re­ments for such a mea­su­re have been met, it is unac­cep­ta­ble that its imple­men­ta­ti­on should be ham­pe­red by exce­s­si­ve costs. In addi­ti­on, an accu­sed per­son can be sadd­led with mas­si­ve­ly and unju­sti­fi­a­bly increa­sed pro­ce­du­ral costs. Nor can it be justi­fi­ed that the com­pa­nies con­cer­ned should be able to demand more than the mar­gi­nal costs they incur as a result of the­se mea­su­res. As fle­xi­ble and con­ve­ni­ent as com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on is, espe­ci­al­ly thanks to mobi­le tele­pho­ny and the Inter­net, it is also clear that the­se tech­no­lo­gies are asso­cia­ted with hig­her risks for public safe­ty. It is the­r­e­fo­re no more than right that the con­ce­s­sion­aires, who are the only ones to pro­fit from the lucra­ti­ve mes­sa­ging busi­ness, should par­ti­ci­pa­te in the police’s fight against the risks thus crea­ted. The new ordi­nan­ce on fees, which will come into force in 2012, will have prac­ti­cal­ly no impact on the tariff struc­tu­re for the inter­cep­ti­on of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons. The moni­to­ring of the anten­na search is much too expen­si­ve, sin­ce not only the cost of 2200 francs accor­ding to CS 5 is incur­red to deter­mi­ne which anten­nas and radio cells are inclu­ded in the moni­to­ring, but also the cost of sear­ches in the data­ba­ses, this acti­vi­ty depen­ding on the num­ber of radio cells, which is very high in cities. Thus, the cost of such sur­veil­lan­ce often amounts to tens of thou­sands of francs. In one recent case, it is said to have been almost 60,000 francs. Howe­ver, the cal­cu­la­ti­on per radio cell is arbi­tra­ry. The data is often stored in one and the same data­ba­se. The num­ber of radio cells the­r­e­fo­re has only a minor influence on the amount of work invol­ved. In addi­ti­on, this is purely an IT ser­vice. Such high amounts can­not be serious­ly justi­fi­ed economically.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Council

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is awa­re of the cost and inte­rest issues invol­ved in moni­to­ring postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic. The­re is a ten­si­on bet­ween the inte­rests of the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties and the inte­rests of the tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders (TSPs) and the legal man­da­te of the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on. In respon­se to inter­pel­la­ti­on Mül­ler 11.3063, the Fede­ral Coun­cil has held out the pro­s­pect of a cost and pro­cess analysis.

Artic­le 16 para­graph 1 of the Fede­ral Act on the Sur­veil­lan­ce of Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic (Büpf; SR 780.1) sti­pu­la­tes that the faci­li­ties requi­red for sur­veil­lan­ce are the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the TSP. The lat­ter recei­ve appro­pria­te com­pen­sa­ti­on from the orde­ring law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties for expen­ses incur­red for the costs of the indi­vi­du­al sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res. Accor­din­gly, Artic­le 31 of the Ordi­nan­ce on the Sur­veil­lan­ce of Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic (Vüpf; SR 780.11) pro­vi­des that the FSP ser­vice shall invoice the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties for the ser­vices ren­de­red in accordance with the Ordi­nan­ce on Fees and Com­pen­sa­ti­on for the Sur­veil­lan­ce of Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic (GebV-ÜPF; SR 780.115.1).

The cost ana­ly­sis should help the legis­la­tu­re to reas­sess the struc­tu­re of cost allo­ca­ti­on by means of com­pen­sa­ti­on and fees within the frame­work of the total revi­si­on of the FÜPF. The detail­ed results of the cost ana­ly­sis can also be used to deter­mi­ne appro­pria­te com­pen­sa­ti­on for the TSP in the con­text of the revi­si­ons of the Vüpf and GebV-ÜPF. The revi­si­on of the GebV-ÜPF, which came into force on Janu­ary 1, 2012, was not aimed at adju­sting the level of fees, but mere­ly ser­ved to incor­po­ra­te into the ordi­nan­ce the moni­to­ring mea­su­res that had deve­lo­ped over many years of practice.

In the con­text of the cur­rent total revi­si­on of the Büpf, the legis­la­tor has the oppor­tu­ni­ty to deci­de on an adjust­ment of the exi­sting fee and com­pen­sa­ti­on system. In doing so, the various inte­rests must be taken into account: the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties demand high-qua­li­ty and seam­less sur­veil­lan­ce, while the TSPs want all costs ari­sing from sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res to be cover­ed. For its part, the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on is bound by the prin­ci­ples of cost reco­very and equi­va­lence when it comes to pas­sing on the costs ari­sing from sur­veil­lan­ce measures.

Based on the results of the ana­ly­sis, the Fede­ral Coun­cil will sub­mit a regu­la­to­ry pro­po­sal in the dis­patch for the atten­ti­on of par­lia­ment on the over­all cost allo­ca­ti­on of sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res in postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic, taking into account the diver­gent inte­rests of the play­ers invol­ved. The Fede­ral Coun­cil is pre­pared to include the con­cerns of the pre­sent postu­la­te in the clarifications.