Take-Aways (AI)
  • The FDPIC has adopted the pilot test car­ri­ed out in 2017 with most­ly oral con­ci­lia­ti­on pro­ce­du­res, which has signi­fi­cant­ly acce­le­ra­ted con­ci­lia­ti­on procedures.
  • The pro­por­ti­on of con­sen­su­al solu­ti­ons rose from 40% to 60%, with par­ti­ci­pant satis­fac­tion remai­ning the same; suc­cessful mea­su­res will be main­tai­ned in the long term.

The FCO pro­vi­des for a gene­ral right of access to offi­ci­al admi­ni­stra­ti­ve docu­ments (Art. 6 FCO). If an aut­ho­ri­ty refu­ses access to reque­sted docu­ments, it must sum­ma­ri­ly justi­fy this (Art. 12 FCO). Within 20 days of this state­ment or after the expiry of the peri­od pro­vi­ded for this pur­po­se, an appeal may be lodged with the FDPIC. Request for arbi­tra­ti­on (Art. 13 et seq. of the Fede­ral Law on Civil Pro­ce­du­re). On the Arbi­tra­ti­on the Admi­ni­stra­ti­ve Pro­ce­du­re Act is not appli­ca­ble. It is the­r­e­fo­re lar­ge­ly up to the FDPIC to deci­de on the details, which may, for exam­p­le, dis­pen­se with a con­ci­lia­ti­on hea­ring and issue a recom­men­da­ti­on within a peri­od of 30 days (Art. 14 FPO). The appli­cant can then request a decis­i­on from the aut­ho­ri­ty, which can be appea­led to the Fede­ral Admi­ni­stra­ti­ve Court (Art. 15 and 16 FCO).

In order to acce­le­ra­te the con­ci­lia­ti­on pro­ce­du­re, the FDPIC has Con­duc­ted a pilot test in 2017, whe­re

Con­ci­lia­ti­on requests majo­ri­ty in Con­ci­lia­ti­on Nego­tia­ti­ons be dealt with the per­sons and aut­ho­ri­ties invol­ved. In the event of a fail­ure to reach agree­ment, only a sum­ma­ri­ly justi­fi­ed recom­men­da­ti­on be issued. Direct writ­ten pro­ce­du­res should now only be car­ri­ed out in excep­tio­nal cases.

The FDPIC has now eva­lua­ted this tri­al. The con­ci­lia­ti­on pro­ce­du­res could be great­ly acce­le­ra­ted as a result:

Pro­ce­s­sing time in days 2014 until August 2016* Pilot pha­se 2017
within 30 days 11% 59%
bet­ween 31 and 99 days 45% 37%
more than 100 days 44% 4%

Also increa­sed was the per­cen­ta­ge of con­sen­su­al reso­lu­ti­ons, from 40% (2013−2016) to 60%. A sur­vey of par­ti­ci­pan­ts in con­ci­lia­ti­on hea­rings indi­ca­tes that the qua­li­ty of con­ci­lia­ti­on hea­rings is per­cei­ved to be about the same (avera­ge score of vs. 4.35 (2017) vs. 4.4 (2014) with a maxi­mum of 5).

As a result

the com­mis­sio­ner trans­fers the pilot test to regu­lar ope­ra­ti­on. The mea­su­res that have been suc­cessful­ly imple­men­ted (most­ly oral pro­ce­e­dings, sum­ma­ry state­ments of rea­sons for recom­men­da­ti­ons, writ­ten pro­ce­e­dings only in excep­tio­nal cases) will be retai­ned in their enti­re­ty for the con­duct of con­ci­lia­ti­on pro­ce­e­dings. The right to adapt to new deve­lo­p­ments and fin­dings is, of cour­se, reserved.