Art. 50 TCA pro­hi­bits the unaut­ho­ri­zed use of information:

Anyo­ne who uses a tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons system to recei­ve non-public infor­ma­ti­on that is not inten­ded for him or her and uses it wit­hout aut­ho­rizati­on or dis­c­lo­ses it to third par­ties is lia­ble to a cus­to­di­al sen­tence not exce­e­ding one year or a mone­ta­ry penalty.

Art. 179novies StGB pro­hi­bits the unaut­ho­ri­zed acqui­si­ti­on of per­so­nal data:

Anyo­ne who obta­ins par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data that is not acce­s­si­ble to the gene­ral public wit­hout aut­ho­rizati­on is lia­ble on request to a cus­to­di­al sen­tence not exce­e­ding three years or a mone­ta­ry penalty.

Art. 179novies StGB was amen­ded by the DPA; pre­vious­ly this pro­vi­si­on read as follows:

Anyo­ne who, wit­hout aut­ho­rizati­on, obta­ins par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data or per­so­na­li­ty pro­files that are not free­ly acce­s­si­ble from a data coll­ec­tion is lia­ble on request to a cus­to­di­al sen­tence not exce­e­ding three years or a mone­ta­ry penalty.

Against this back­ground, the Basel-Land­schaft public pro­se­cu­tor had to deci­de whe­ther the Ope­ra­tor of a cer­tain net­work as pri­va­te plain­ti­ff was to be admit­ted in the pro­ce­e­dings against a third par­ty (we will not go into fur­ther details for rea­sons of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty). Accor­ding to an order issued by the public prosecutor’s office in March 2025, this is not the case:

  • Anyo­ne who is the inju­red par­ty, i.e. who has been direct­ly inju­red by the offen­se, i.e. who is the bea­rer of the pro­tec­ted legal inte­rest, can con­sti­tu­te them­sel­ves as a pri­va­te claimant.
  • In the case of Art. 50 TCA, it fol­lows from the mate­ri­als (dating back to 1921) that it is a mat­ter of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons sec­re­cy. Accor­din­gly, only the owner of the secret, i.e. the “cus­to­mers of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic”, are pro­tec­ted, but not the net­work operator.
  • In the case of Art. 179novies StGB, the “mere owner of a data coll­ec­tion” is not or at least no lon­ger the aggrie­ved par­ty, espe­ci­al­ly sin­ce the term “data coll­ec­tion” no lon­ger exists. In addi­ti­on, the net­work ope­ra­tor hard­ly ever main­ta­ins a data collection.