![]() However, the following had to be examined in more detail Search engine indexing, the reasonable measures taken to ensure the Data correctness (Art. Since it affirmed these facts, it refrained from examining the further criticisms of the FDPIC and therefore leaves open whether Moneyhouse complies with the general data processing principles of proportionality and purpose limitation. Substantive pointsįrom a substantive point of view, the FAC examines above all the Disclosure of personality profiles to third partieswhich is inadmissible without a justification (Art. ![]() Regarding the qualification of data processing as the creation of a personality profile in a specific individual case, the literature, case law and materials can be referred to in the context of the substantive examination. What is to be understood by legally sufficient consent in connection with the creation of personality profiles then follows from the legal basis (cf. Although the content of the legal terms used is not clear and partly disputed, the FAC accepts this legal claim (without reference to the corresponding references in the Street View decision of the BVGer), because it is sufficiently clear with reference to the statement of the grounds for the action and can be elevated to a judgment in the event of an affirmation – if necessary with judicial clarifications: the legal request that Moneyhouse be obliged to delete “all links on Moneyhouse that enable the creation of personality profiles of persons who have not consented to this in accordance with the law”. The required amount of the Definiteness of the further legal claims of the plaintiffThe BVG accepts this legal request, e.g. 25 BZP necessary interest in a declaratory judgment, because the effects of any unlawful processing of data would be FDPIC would be eliminated. In this case, the FAC denies the right under Art. The FDPIC had demanded a finding that Moneyhouse had created personality profiles without justification and had thus violated the personality of many persons. The first of these questions concerned the Admissibility of the request for a declaratory judgment of the FDPIC. The FAC first had to clarify procedural issues. Considerations of the FAC Procedural points 4 FDPA) reached the Federal Administrative Court. Moneyhouse has confirmed the recommendation of the FDPIC only partially accepted, whereupon the FDPIC by legal action (pursuant to Art. There is no justification for this, which is why the disclosure is unlawful (Art. ![]() In addition, Moneyhouse discloses personality profiles to third parties. ![]() In the second recommendation, the FDPIC took the position that Moneyhouse was processing personal data in a disproportionate manner and violating the principles of proportionality, purpose limitation, transparency and data accuracy. The action underlying the judgment filed by the FDPIC against Moneyhouse goes back to the second recommendation of the FDPIC to Moneyhouse (respectively at that time the Itonex AG) of November 6, 2014, after an initial fact-finding exercise had been completed with the recommendation (adopted by Itonex) of Novem( Recommendation, PDF). they are also accessible via Google, for example. ![]() As far as persons entered in the commercial register are concerned, Moneyhouse entries are also indexed by search engines, i.e. More detailed information, including details of the residential situation and neighbors, creditworthiness information and, depending on the applicable cantonal regulations, land register information and tax records, is only accessible to paying premium members. In the cause célèbre “Moneyhouse”, the Federal Administrative Court has his judgment pleases Moneyhouse is a business information service that offers limited information on individuals and companies free of charge for registered users. Note to this summary: Moneyhouse was represented in this matter by Walder Wyss, the law firm where the author of this article also works. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |