VPB 70.73: Anony­mizati­on of judgments

EN 
EN  DE  FR 

from

on

Indu­stries

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Laws

,

Topics

, , ,
Take-Aways (AI)
  • The inter­net publi­ca­ti­on of judgments of the Appeals Com­mit­tees is cover­ed by Art. 13 VRSK; anony­mizati­on is per­mit­ted under Art. 19 para. 3 and Art. 22 let. a DSG.
  • The anony­mizati­on car­ri­ed out is suf­fi­ci­ent, as it would be unre­a­sonable for third par­ties to estab­lish the iden­ti­ty; no cau­sal dama­ge and no serious vio­la­ti­on of per­so­na­li­ty rights established.

VPB 70.73 of Febru­ary 15, 2006: Anony­mizati­on of judgments

Sta­te lia­bi­li­ty of the fede­ral govern­ment. Com­pen­sa­ti­on. Satis­fac­tion. Cau­sa­li­ty. Vio­la­ti­on of per­so­na­li­ty. Pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data. Anony­mizati­on of published judgments. Vio­la­ti­on of per­so­nal rights by the inter­net publi­ca­ti­on of a judgment of the Fede­ral Per­son­nel Appeals Commission?

Art. 3, Art. 6 VG. Art. 13 VRSK. Art. 30 para. 3 BV. Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR. Art. 2 para. 2, Art. 19, Art. 22 let. a FADP.

- Anyo­ne who makes data acce­s­si­ble in a retrie­val pro­ce­du­re is dis­clo­sing per­so­nal data within the mea­ning of Art. 3 let. f FADP (E. 4b). Accor­ding to Art. 19 para. 3 FADP, fede­ral bodies may pro­ce­ed in this way if this is express­ly pro­vi­ded for. Like­wi­se, under Art. 22(a) FADP, they may pro­cess per­so­nal data for non-per­so­nal pur­po­ses, in par­ti­cu­lar for rese­arch, plan­ning and sta­tis­tics, if the data are anony­mi­zed (E. 4c). Art. 13 of the CCPR is a suf­fi­ci­ent legal basis for the publi­ca­ti­on of judgments of the Appeals Com­mis­si­ons on the inter­net (E. 4d, f).

- Unlawful­ness (que­sti­on left open). Anony­mizati­on is suf­fi­ci­ent if the effort to estab­lish the iden­ti­ty of the com­plainant appears to be so gre­at that a third par­ty inte­re­sted in the infor­ma­ti­on would not rea­son­ab­ly take it upon hims­elf (E. 5b, c). Moreo­ver, the­re is no vio­la­ti­on of the prin­ci­ple of anony­mizati­on if per­sons who are fami­li­ar with the details of the case can, if neces­sa­ry, reco­gnize who is invol­ved despi­te the con­ce­al­ment (E. 5d/bb).

- Lack of cau­sa­li­ty. The Inter­net publi­ca­ti­on of the judgment, inclu­ding the result of the complainant’s employee qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on, was not the cau­se of the com­plainant not obtai­ning two jobs. Fur­ther­mo­re, the­re is a lack of suf­fi­ci­ent expl­ana­ti­on of the dama­ge (E. 6). In the absence of a serious vio­la­ti­on of per­so­na­li­ty rights (Art. 6 para. 2 VG), no com­pen­sa­ti­on can be award­ed eit­her (E. 7).

PDF:[pdf-embedder url=“http://datenrecht.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2006 – 02-15-VPB-70.73-Anonymisierung.pdf”]