In its ruling 2C_275/2023 of 12 June 2024, the Federal Supreme Court handed down another landmark decision in the area of data protection.
A group of taxi and chauffeur associations disagreed with certain provisions of the ordinances implementing the “Law on Taxis and Transport Vehicles with Drivers” (RTVTC/GE), which came into force in November 2022, and lodged an appeal with the High Court of the Canton of Geneva, claiming violations of data protection and economic freedom. This complaint was taken to the Federal Supreme Court.
What is it all about?
Various taxi and chauffeur associations and organisations lodged a complaint against the Geneva taxi regulations, arguing that the mandatory installation of GPS systems would violate data protection regulations. They also complained that the ordinance would mean that an old business model, the leasing of licences to part-time taxi drivers, would no longer be possible and would restrict their economic freedom.
Central questions
With regard to the complaints concerning economic freedom, the complainants did not agree with the provision that only allowed the personal use of their licences. The Federal Supreme Court then examined the compatibility with economic freedom in accordance with Art. 27 of the Federal Constitution and thus a central fundamental right.
With regard to data protection law, the focus was on the question of whether and to what extent authorities are allowed to pass on personal data without the consent of the individual. These aspects of the Federal Supreme Court’s decision are discussed below.
Discussion of the judgement
The complainants demanded the cancellation of certain provisions of the RTVTC/GE. Art. 27 of the Federal Constitution protects the activity of self-employed and employed persons, whereby cantonal restrictions are possible. The complainants nevertheless argue that one of the provisions of the cantonal regulations would restrict the economic freedom of holders of a licence for increased use. This is because it is no longer possible to rent out these personally issued licences. In addition, the personal authorisation for increased use would condition taxi drivers in companies to work a certain number of hours, even if this would not be possible due to demand. According to the Federal Supreme Court, such licences are often abusive and disproportionately expensive. This should be prevented by making licences available for personal use only. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the compatibility of this provision with economic freedom.
The complainants also expressed their concerns in terms of data protection law, as they felt that their privacy was at risk due to the provisions on the geolocalisation of taxis. At the centre of the case was the question of whether and to what extent authorities are allowed to pass on personal data without the individual’s consent. The lower court ruled in favour of the authorities, stating that the transfer of data was justified.
However, the GPS systems to be installed in the taxis would only be used for professional purposes and the six-month storage period for the data was justified. In addition, the requirements for the GPS systems, which are determined by the respective administration, are also permissible. The highest court therefore ruled that the protection of privacy was still guaranteed in accordance with Art. 13 of the Federal Constitution and that there was no risk of serious interference with the protection of privacy. They justified this with the overriding public interest. The Federal Supreme Court then weighed up the interests involved. It weighed the public interest in the disclosure of the data against the right to data protection, in particular whether the authorities had complied with their obligations to minimise data processing for specific purposes. The Federal Supreme Court weighted the public interests more heavily and upheld the lower court’s decision that the disclosure was proportionate for the reasons stated.
Effects of the judgement
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Geneva High Court, stating that the application of the provisions met the constitutional requirements and referring to the legality of the ordinance. The judgement shows once again that, despite the stricter obligations of the revised Data Protection Act, public interests prevail when data is passed on without the consent of the individual in the performance of state tasks.
Criticism of the judgement
The judgement of the Federal Supreme Court facilitates state interference in the privacy of citizens.