- Das Bundesgericht untersagt einer Tessiner Bank, US-Behörden Daten von zwei Anwälten und einer Kanzlei aufgrund des DSG zu übermitteln.
- Eine Datenherausgabe an die USA verletzt grundsätzlich Persönlichkeitsrechte, weil die USA keinen angemessenen Datenschutz gemäss Art. 6 Abs. 1 DSG bieten.
- Ausnahmezulassung erfordert zwingende öffentliche Interessen; Bank konnte nicht nachweisen, dass die Herausgabe zum Zeitpunkt unerlässlich gewesen wäre.
With today’s Media release (October 5, 2016), the Federal Supreme Court published its ruling of September 22, 2016 (4A_83/2016), which prohibited a Ticino bank, based on the DPA, from providing the U.S. authorities, as part of the U.S. tax program, with data on two attorneys who had managed accounts at the Ticino bank as agents for U.S. clients and on a law firm that had provided U.S. clients to the Ticino bank.
The intended release of data to the U.S. authorities constitutes in principle a violation of the privacy of the data subjects, since the U.S. does not have legislation that ensures adequate data protection within the meaning of Article 6(1) FADP. Under these circumstances, release of the data may be justified under the Data Protection Act if this is indispensable to safeguard overriding public interests (Article 6(2) FADP). Since this requirement must be met at the time the data is handed over, the circumstances may change in the course of the proceedings. In this sense, the provision of data to the US authorities would be indispensable if, without the provision of data, it could be assumed that the tax dispute with the USA would escalate again and that the Swiss financial center would be adversely affected and Switzerland’s reputation as a reliable negotiating partner would be impaired. The complainant bank does not sufficiently demonstrate that disclosure at this point in time is indispensable to safeguard the public interest. As a result, the Commercial Court does not violate any law when it prohibits the disclosure.