Zurich muni­ci­pal magistrate’s office: penal­ty order for fal­se information

As our col­le­ague Mar­tin Stei­ger (Stei­ger Legal), the Zurich muni­ci­pal court issued a penal­ty order for vio­la­ti­ons of the DPA on June 10, 2024 (here you can find the ori­gi­nal con­tri­bu­ti­on by Mar­tin Stei­ger and here the anony­mi­zed penal­ty order that Mar­tin Stei­ger was able to obtain, with comm­ents by him):

The muni­ci­pal court judge had a willful vio­la­ti­on of the duty to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on reco­gnized, but then refers to Art. 19 f. DSG, i.e. the pro­vi­si­ons on the duty to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on. Appar­ent­ly, the infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded con­tai­ned incor­rect infor­ma­ti­on about the ori­gin of the per­so­nal data at the controller.

The buses were CHF 200 (plus costs of CHF 250), is the­r­e­fo­re in the low ran­ge and far from the limit of CHF 5,000 for an ent­ry in the cri­mi­nal record (Art. 18 para. 1 lit. c StReG).

The penal­ty order makes it clear,

  • that fines may inde­ed be impo­sed – as far as is known, this is the first fine under the revi­sed DPA;
  • that cri­mi­nal law can be a wea­pon in the hands of the right­ly or wron­gly dis­sa­tis­fied. Sin­ce the real con­se­quen­ces – costs, effort, bur­den – for the accu­sed per­son and pos­si­bly their employer are con­sider­a­b­ly hig­her than the amount of the fine, it is worth being careful, espe­ci­al­ly when it comes to the inter­faces with the per­sons con­cer­ned (espe­ci­al­ly infor­ma­ti­on and disclosure);
  • that even appa­rent igno­rance of the DPA does not neces­s­a­ri­ly pre­vent the cri­mi­nal aut­ho­ri­ties from impo­sing fines.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be