SWITZERLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Hugh Reeves, Jürg Schneider and David Vasella, Walder Wyss Ltd
tenance of the certification is contractually guaranteed. • There is no reason not to base a transfer on the SCCs in addition to the Swiss or EU- US DPF, and many companies will take this approach. In this case, a TIA is not required if the SCCs are only a safety net (unless one takes the view that a TIA remains necessary as an independent contractual obligation under the SCCs). In Switzerland, at least, the FDPIC will not expect a TIA if the Swiss-US DPF provides a basis for the transfer. If a TIA is indeed carried out, it can be simpler, because the EU adequacy decision for the EU-US DPF covers part of the relevant US law, regardless of the Swiss-US DPF. How - ever, an exporter should consider whether the primary basis is the Swiss-US DPF, EU-US DPF or SCCs. Although there is no clear obligation to make and document this deci - sion, the consequences are not the same. For example, the requirements under the SCCs and the Swiss-US DPF differ with regard to the information to be provided to the data subjects. • In the case of a transfer from Switzerland to a country with an adequate level of data pro - tection and an onward transfer therefrom to a US recipient certified under the EU-US DPF, the EU-US DPF covers the onward transfer. The FADP does not apply to this onward transfer.
432 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook