<p>On March 13, 2024, the European Parliament adopted the Artificial Intelligence Act, a far-reaching, 400-plus-page piece of legislation that seeks to establish a uniform legal framework for the development of AI.</p>
<p>The Act reaches beyond the EU&#8217;s borders, regulating AI providers and users regardless of location provided that the AI «output» is used in the EU. Although Switzerland has taken a <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/insights/swiss-federal-council-launches-ai-regulatory-regime-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wait-and-see approach</a> to regulating AI, its position in Europe means that most Swiss AI will be subject to EU regulation and Switzerland may be compelled, whether de facto or de jure, to adopt equivalent regulations.</p>
<p>The Act largely takes a risk-based approach to regulating AI. Closely tracking the draft leaked in January (discussed <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/insights/leaked-draft-of-eu-ai-act-sheds-light-on-proposed-regulation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>), it bans certain practices that threaten fundamental rights, such as social scoring and the exploitation of age or disability, and subjects «high-risk AI», such as biometric identification, credit scoring, and employee evaluations, to data governance, human oversight, impact assessments, and other restrictions.</p>
<p>The Act departs from the risk-based approach in two key respects:</p>
<ul>
<li>First, it imposes basic transparency requirements on nearly all individual users of AI. These measures seek to ensure that AI-generated content is labeled, including deepfakes, and users know when they are interacting with AI.</li>
<li>Second, the Act singles out for specific regulation «general-purpose AI models» and «general-purpose AI systems». These measures, which were added following the generative AI explosion in 2023, depart from the Act&#8217;s technology-agnostic risk-based approach and may prove complicated to interpret and enforce as the technology evolves.</li>
</ul>
<p>The penalties for violations are potentially substantial. Member states will establish their own rules, but the Commission&#8217;s «AI Office» is empowered to fine prohibited AI practices up to EUR 35 million or, if the offender is a company, up to 7 percent of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.</p>
<p>Restrictions on «unacceptable» uses come into force later this year. The «general-purpose AI system» regulations in early 2025. The transparency requirements and the regulation of «high-risk» systems become effective in 2026.</p>
<p>The EU&#8217;s efforts to regulate the risks of AI are laudable. The EU is trying to set early boundaries for an emerging technology that may have a profound social and economic impact. The Act sets important guardrails, but it contains only limited provisions to support the AI tech sector in Europe. Time will tell if the regulations stifle innovation and progress and weaken Europe&#8217;s competitive position vis-à-vis the United States and China, contributing to Europe falling further behind. To avoid these pitfalls, the new law will need constant re-evaluation to determine whether new developments require new approaches and safeguards.</p>


EU Adopts AI Act 

<h3>A. Introduction</h3>
<p>The Swiss Federal Supreme Court&#8217;s January 19, 2024 decision, which was published on February 12, 2024, concerns an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations against an employee. In that context, the Court assessed whether the internal investigation, which confirmed a reasonable suspicion of sexual harassment and ultimately led to the employee&#8217;s dismissal, had been conducted properly.</p>
<p>The key rulings from the Court&#8217;s decision are:</p>
<ol>
<li>When private employers perform internal investigations, the standard criminal procedural guarantees do not apply;</li>
<li>Employers do not need to provide an employee subject to investigation with advance notice of an interview or an opportunity to prepare. Rather, it suffices if the employer informs the accused employee at the beginning of the interview of its purpose and content;</li>
<li>The absence of a «person of trust» at the interview does not constitute a serious deficiency in the investigation process that would render the employee&#8217;s termination abusive, even if an employer&#8217;s internal regulations entitle employees to be accompanied by a «person of trust» at such interviews;</li>
<li>Employers are not required to inform the accused employee in detail of the allegations against him or her. Generic and anonymized information about the allegations is sufficient;</li>
<li>A reasonable suspicion, confirmed by an internal investigation, is sufficient basis to ordinarily terminate an employee lawfully even if the suspicion is later proven to be unfounded. Before terminating an employee, the employer is not required to prove the truth of the allegations.</li>
</ol>
<p>The Court&#8217;s ruling rejects the views previously expressed by some legal scholars that employers must provide employees subject to investigation the procedural guarantees accorded to the accused person in criminal investigations.</p>
<h3>B. Summary of Facts and Procedural History</h3>
<p>As noted above, the case concerned an internal investigation regarding allegations of sexual harassment at a bank. Employee A contacted the bank&#8217;s ombudswoman for conduct and ethics and reported sexual harassment by Employee B. The bank conducted an internal investigation to clarify the sexual harassment allegations. As part of the investigation, several employees, including Employee B, were interviewed. The internal investigation concluded that there was sufficient basis for a reasonable suspicion that Employee B had sexually harassed Employee A. As a result, the bank terminated Employee B by observing the applicable notice period.</p>
<p>Employee B then brought a claim for unfair dismissal and damages. The Zurich Labor Court rejected the claim. It held that it was irrelevant whether the allegations of sexual harassment were true or not. Rather, the only relevant factor was whether the bank had sufficiently investigated the allegations. The Labor Court found that it had.</p>
<p>Employee B appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, which concluded that the bank had not afforded Employee B an adequate opportunity to defend himself against the allegations. In particular, it focused on the lack of detail provided by the bank regarding the allegations, which, according to the High Court, prevented Employee B from adequately defending himself and, in particular, from providing exculpatory facts and evidences. The High Court therefore held that the termination was abusive.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a></p>
<p>Thereafter the bank appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court&#8217;s decision.</p>
<h3>C. Findings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court</h3>
<h4>1. No equivalent procedural guarantees as in criminal investigations</h4>
<p>The Court&#8217;s decision clarifies uncertainty respecting the law applicable to internal investigations in private companies. In a case from May 2016,<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> the Court quoted legal scholars who expressed the view that in internal investigations, employers had to provide accused employees with procedural guarantees equivalent to those of a criminal proceedings (i.e., a right to prepare for the defense, be represented by a lawyer, and request the taking of evidence).<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> As a result, following the Court&#8217;s May 2016 decision, it was unclear what procedural guarantees, if any, were required in internal investigations. In its recent decision, the Court clarified that its 2016 ruling merely reproduced the views expressed by some legal scholars but did not endorse them.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a></p>
<p>The Court further explained that, unlike in a criminal proceedings, in which an accused person is subject to the state&#8217;s criminal power and may face criminal liability (including imprisonment and fines), employees and employers voluntarily enter into an employment relationship and the worst threat an employee can face is termination.</p>
<p>According to the Court, the bank&#8217;s internal investigation provided adequate protections for Employee B because the bank interviewed several employees, reviewed Employee B&#8217;s electronic communications, and provided Employee B an opportunity to comment on the minutes of his interview.</p>
<h4>2. No obligation to announce the purpose and the content of the interview in advance</h4>
<p>The Court held that, unlike in criminal proceedings, employers are not required to inform employees in advance of the purpose and content of an internal investigation interview. Rather, it is sufficient if the employee is informed at the beginning of the interview of its purpose and content. There is no legal requirement to provide the employee with an opportunity to prepare for the interview.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a></p>
<h4>3. No right to be accompanied by a «person of trust»</h4>
<p>The Court held that the absence of a «person of trust» at the interview does not constitute a serious deficiency in the investigation process that would render the employee&#8217;s termination abusive, even if an employer&#8217;s internal regulations entitle employees to be accompanied by a «person of trust» at such interviews.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a></p>
<h4>4. Right to have the allegations clarified</h4>
<p>The Court confirmed that the internal investigation of a private employer is not comparable to a state criminal investigation and that therefore the employer is not required to inform the employee in detail of the allegations against him or her. Rather, generic and anonymized information about the allegations is sufficient. The Court also explained that accuser&#8217;s identity must be kept confidential and may not be disclosed to the accused employee.</p>
<h4>5. Ordinary termination due to reasonable suspicion is not abusive</h4>
<p>The Court&#8217;s ruling reminded that Swiss employment law is governed by the principle of freedom of termination. This means that there are no particular reasons required for an ordinary termination of the employment relationship.</p>
<p>Accordingly, unlike in criminal proceedings, in which there can be no conviction unless the alleged crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, an employee may be terminated based on mere suspicions, even if the suspicions later turn out to be unfounded.</p>
<p>Employers still have an obligation to establish that their suspicions are reasonable before terminating their employees. Termination may be abusive if based on mere allegations absent an adequate investigation to ascertain the trustworthiness of the allegations, or if the investigation fails to establish a reasonable suspicion that the allegations are indeed true.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a></p>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>        OGer ZH LA210022 of May 23, 2023.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>        BGer 4A_694/2015 of May 4, 2016, E. 2.4.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a>        BGer 4A_694/2015 of May 4, 2016, E. 2.4.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.1.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.4.1.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.4.2.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.2.</h6>


Hpmburger Bulletin

No Criminal Procedural Guarantees in Internal Investigations

<p>On January 22, 2024, two unofficial draft versions of the proposed EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which has been eagerly anticipated since EU policymakers announced an agreement last December, were leaked online. Although the 258-page text is not yet approved and may still change, the leaked draft provides the first clear picture of how the proposed AI Act will likely work. As formulated, the AI Act will have far-reaching consequences for companies, including those in Switzerland, that either develop or use AI or provide AI-generated content in the EU.</p>
<p>As expected, the AI Act takes a risk-based approach to regulating AI, imposing potentially significant compliance requirements on so-called providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems. Providers and deployers of AI systems that are not high risk are subject to general transparency requirements intended to ensure that users of have notice when interacting with AI and AI-generated content. The draft Act also contemplates different requirements for general purpose AI models depending on their capabilities and corresponding level of risk.</p>
<p>Below we summarize the Act&#8217;s salient features, provide an overview of its application, and explain its potential effects on providers and deployers of AI systems and AI-generated content in the EU.</p>
<h3>To Whom Does the AI Act Apply?</h3>
<p>The proposed AI Act would apply not only to companies and individuals involved in the development of AI systems and general-purpose AI models, such as those provided by Google and OpenAI, but also to those using AI systems. The Act also applies to other persons, such as importers and distributors of AI systems, and other affected persons located in the EU.</p>
<p>In the terminology of the Act, developers of AI systems and general-purpose models are referred to as «providers». Professional users of AI systems are referred to as «deployers».</p>
<p>The Act is directly relevant for companies established in Switzerland because it applies not only to providers and deployers located in the EU, but also to providers and deployers located in third countries. Providers who make AI systems or general-purpose AI models available in the EU or who supply AI systems for use in the EU fall within the scope of the Act. The Act also applies to providers of AI systems that produce outputs used in the EU. Likewise, if deployers outside the EU generate content used in the EU they are also subject to the Act.</p>
<h3>Which AI Models and Systems Are in Scope?</h3>
<p>The AI Act regulates general purpose AI models and AI systems. Examples of AI models include GPT-4 or Mistral&#8217;s Mixtral 8x7B. AI systems include applications that rely on AI models, such as ChatGPT.</p>
<p>The Act defines «General purpose AI models» broadly to include AI models trained with large amounts of data using self-supervision at scale that can competently perform a wide range of distinct tasks and be integrated into a variety of downstream systems or applications.</p>
<p>«AI system» is defined to include machine-based systems designed to operate with varying degrees of autonomy that infer from inputs received how to generate outputs. As the draft Act explains, a key characteristic of AI systems is their capability to infer. The techniques that enable inference in AI systems include various machine learning approaches.</p>
<h3>How Does the AI Act Regulate AI Systems and General Purpose AI Models?</h3>
<p>The proposed AI Act contemplates different obligations depending on the type of AI system or model at issue: While certain AI practices are prohibited, the regulatory approach to permitted AI systems and models depends on the risks associated with their use.</p>
<h3>Which Practices Are Prohibited?</h3>
<p>Certain AI practices that threaten fundamental rights are prohibited under the Act. These include using AI purposefully to manipulate a person&#8217;s consciousness with subliminal techniques, exploiting individual vulnerabilities due to age, disability, or a specific social or economic situation, evaluating or classifying people based on social behavior, and subject to certain exceptions, remotely identifying people using biometric information for law enforcement purposes.</p>
<h3>What Are High-Risk AI Systems?</h3>
<p>The draft provides a set of rules for determining whether an AI system qualifies as high risk. In addition, the draft AI Act asks for the EU Commission to establish a comprehensive list of practical examples of high risk and non-high risk AI systems, to facilitate the distinction.</p>
<p>High-risk systems include systems used for: remote biometric identification; safety components in the management and operation of critical digital infrastructure; determining access to or evaluating performance or behavior at education institutions; recruiting for jobs or making HR decisions; evaluating access to essential private and public services; law enforcement; migration, asylum, and border control management; and the administration of justice and democratic processes.</p>
<h3>What Requirements Apply to High-Risk AI Systems?</h3>
<p>AI systems that are high-risk are subject to a variety of requirements. These include the development and implementation of a risk management system, appropriate data governance and management practices for training models, technical documentation demonstrating compliance, automatic logging to ensure a level of traceability appropriate to the AI system&#8217;s intended purpose, transparency sufficient to enable deployers to interpret the system&#8217;s output, and human oversight. High-risk AI systems must also be designed and developed such that they achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity based on benchmarks and measurement methodologies to be developed by the EU Commission.</p>
<h3>Which Obligations Apply to Providers of High-Risk AI Systems?</h3>
<p>Providers of high-risk AI systems must ensure that they comply with the requirements above and take various steps, such as implementing quality-management, record-keeping, and automatic-logging systems, to effectuate compliance, and undergo a conformity assessment if required by the AI Act. If a provider has reason to believe that a high-risk system does not conform with the Act, it must immediately report the incident and take the necessary corrective actions to bring the system into conformity or withdraw it.</p>
<p>Providers who are located outside the EU must appoint an authorized representative in the EU to perform its obligations under the Act.</p>
<h3>Which Obligations Apply to Deployers of High-Risk AI Systems?</h3>
<p>Deployers of high-risk systems are also subject to specific obligations. These include using high-risk systems in accordance with instructions for use, assigning human oversight to suitably trained individuals, and storing automatically generated logs.</p>
<p>Deployers that are regulated financial institutions under EU law are required to maintain logs as part of the documentation kept pursuant to relevant EU financial service legislation. Employers that deploy high-risk AI systems must inform their employees if they are subject to or affected by the system.</p>
<p>Additionally, before deploying high-risk AI systems, deployers that are governed by public law, or private operators providing public services, such as banking or insurance providers, must perform a fundamental rights impact assessment addressing the system&#8217;s intended use, duration of use, people affected, specific risks, the implementation of human oversight measures, and risk mitigation plans.</p>
<h3>How Does the AI Act Regulate General Purpose AI Models?</h3>
<p>The Act would regulate general purpose AI models depending on their level of risk. Providers of general purpose AI models are required to maintain technical documentation regarding the training, testing, and users of the model, put in place a policy respecting EU copyright law, and provide publicly a detailed summary of the content used for training the general purpose AI model.</p>
<p>Providers of general purpose AI models that the European Commission determines constitute a «systemic risk» because of their capabilities or the cumulative amount of compute used for their training, are subject to notification obligations and will be publicly listed. Such providers must also perform model evaluations pursuant to standardized protocols, assess and mitigate systemic risks at the EU level, document serious incidents and corrective measures, and ensure an adequate level of cybersecurity protection.</p>
<h3>What Other Obligations Apply to AI Systems?</h3>
<p>The proposed AI Act includes transparency obligations that apply to providers and users of certain AI systems, including AI systems that are not high risk. These transparency obligations are primarily directed toward protecting individual users of AI systems, ensuring that AI-generated content is labelled and preventing the misuse of so-called «deepfakes».</p>
<p>Providers of AI systems that are intended to interact directly with individuals must ensure users understand they are interacting with AI. Providers of AI systems that generate synthetic content—including audio, images, video, and text—must ensure that the outputs are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as AI-generated or -manipulated.</p>
<p>Likewise, deployers of AI systems that generate or manipulate image, audio, or video content must disclose that the content has been AI-generated or -manipulated. Deployers of AI systems that generate or manipulate publicly available texts regarding matters of public interest must disclose that the text was artificially generated or manipulated.</p>
<h3>What Are the Consequences in Case of Non-Compliance?</h3>
<p>Member States will establish rules for penalties and other enforcement measures. Engaging in a prohibited AI practice as described above is subject to administrative fines of up to EUR 35 million or, if the offender is a company, up to 7 percent of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. Violation of certain of the obligations associated with high-risk AI systems can give rise to fines of EUR 15 million or, if the offender is a company, up to 3 percent of its total worldwide annual turnover. Supplying incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information is also a fineable offense.</p>
<p>The fine amount will be determined based on all the relevant circumstances, including the nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement, prior misconduct, the annual turnover and market share of the offender, and any other aggravating or mitigating factors.</p>
<h3>What Are the Next Steps?</h3>
<p>The text of the draft AI law leaked earlier this week is not yet final, but no major changes are expected. Assuming the final text of the Act will be substantially the same as the version leaked this week and will include all of the elements described above, companies potentially subject to regulation would be well served by considering now how best to address the new compliance obligations it will impose.</p>
<p>It remains unclear, however, when the Act will be formally adopted. Once adopted, the Act will be published in the Official Journal of the EU and will enter into force on the twentieth day after publication. After the Act comes into force, there will be a two-year transition period, but certain provisions take full effect sooner. Six months after the Act comes into force, the prohibitions on AI practices posing unacceptable risks will apply. The rules for high-risk AI systems would not apply until thirty-six months after the Act comes into force.</p>


Homburger Bulletin

Leaked Draft of EU AI Act Sheds Light on Proposed Regulation

Gesellschaftsrecht / M&A

Wettbewerb

Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

Prozesse

IP / IT

Regulierung

Compliance

Untersuchungen

Finanzierungen und Anlageprodukte

Kapitalmarkt

Finanzmarktrecht

Datenschutz

Arbeitsrecht und Vergütung für Führungskräfte

Steuern

Healthcare / Life Sciences

Legal 500_webnews

The Legal 500 hat Homburger in 12 Kategorien als Tier 1-Kanzlei ausgezeichnet und wählt 7 Anwälte für die Hall of Fame aus

Homburger_SocialMedia_Template_001

<p>The Legal 500 hat Homburger in den folgenden Kategorien als Tier 1-Kanzlei ausgezeichnet: Banking and Finance; Capital Markets; Commercial, Corporate and M&amp;A; Competition; Data Privacy and Data Protection; Dispute Resolution: Arbitration; Dispute Resolution: Litigation; Employment; Healthcare and Life Sciences; Intellectual Property; Regulatory, Compliance and Investigations und Tax.</p>
<p>Sechs Partner and ein Senior Counsel wurden mit der «Hall of Fame» geehrt: <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/daniel-daeniker" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daniel Daeniker</a>: Commercial, Corporate, M&amp;A; <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/marcel-dietrich" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Marcel Dietrich</a>: Competition, <a href="https://homburger.ch/de/team/balz-gross" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Balz Gross</a>: Dispute Resolution – Arbitration; <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/felix-dasser" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Felix Dasser</a>: Dispute Resolution – Litigation; <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/georg-rauber" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Georg Rauber</a>: Intellectual Property; <a href="https://homburger.ch/de/team/flavio-romerio" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flavio Romerio</a>: Regulatory, Compliance and Investigations; and <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/rene-bosch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">René Bösch</a>: Banking &amp; Finance – Zurich und Capital Markets. In die «Hall of Fame» werden Anwälte aufgenommen, welche konstant gutes Feedback von Klienten erhalten und mindestens acht Jahre hintereinander in den The Legal 500 Rankings an erster Stelle standen.</p>
<p>The Legal 500 als Teil von Legalease, einem Anbieter von Informationen zum Rechtsmarkt, analysiert Anwaltskanzleien in der ganzen Welt und veröffentlicht jährliche Rankings basierend auf einer umfangreichen Recherche.</p>


Vectivio

Homburger News

Homburger and VectivBio

<p>On May 22, 2023, VectivBio Holding AG (Nasdaq: VECT), Basel (Switzerland), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company pioneering novel transformational treatments for severe rare gastrointestinal conditions, and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: IRWD), a GI-focused healthcare company, announced that they had entered into an agreement for Ironwood to launch an all-cash public tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares in VectivBio for USD 17 per share, with an estimated aggregate consideration of approximately USD 1 bn, net of VectivBio cash and debt. The acquisition price represents a premium of 80% relative to the volume-weighted average share price over the previous 90 trading days. The offer is subject to customary conditions and expected to close in mid-2023. VectivBio&#8217;s board of directors unanimously recommends the offer. Orbimed, Forbion and Versant Ventures, and VectivBio&#8217;s directors and officers jointly representing 28.6% of VectivBio&#8217;s shareholdings, entered into tender and support agreements in connection with, and in support of, the offer.</p>
<p>Homburger AG serves as legal and tax advisor to VectivBio on the transaction. The Homburger team includes Andreas Müller, Margrit Marti, Oliver Kneubühl, Francesco Bernasconi, Oliver Dalla Palma, Daniel Wenzinger and Carolina Rodriguez (all Corporate / M&amp;A), Lorenzo Togni (Capital Markets), Stefan Oesterhelt, Philippe Gobet and Kevin Müller (all Tax), Stefan Bindschedler (Financing and Investment Products), Luca Dal Molin (IP / IT; Data Protection), Angela Casey (Employment and Executive Compensation), and Richard Stäuber and Christoph Grüninger (Competition, Regulatory).</p>


Homburger advises VectivBio with respect to the announced public cash tender offer from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals

Scaled-Agile-web-640x140

Homburger and Scaled Agile

<p>On April 20, 2023, Scaled Agile Inc., a portfolio company of Eurazeo SE (Euronext Paris: RF), one of Europe&#8217;s leading private equity firms, announced its acquisition of Rentouch, a Swiss-based company specializing in software for visualizing agile planning events across multiple agile teams with SAFe®. This acquisition aims to accelerate Scaled Agile&#8217;s goal to redefine the way the world&#8217;s leading organizations identify and deliver customer value, capitalize on emerging opportunities, and improve business outcomes through integrated solutions that help teams unlock better ways of working.</p>
<p>Homburger advised Scaled Agile in this transaction. The team was led by Dieter Gericke (Corporate/M&amp;A) and included Léonard Aeschlimann (Corporate/M&amp;A), Reto Heuberger, Philippe Weber (both Tax), Gabriel Kasper (IP/IT and Data Protection), Matia Trosic and Frédéric Fitzi (both Employment and Executive Compensation) as well as Pepe Hünerwadel and Florian Gasche (both Corporate/M&amp;A).</p>


Homburger advises Scaled Agile on its acquisition of Rentouch

<ul>
<li>Führung von datenschutzrechtlichen Verfahren vor Gerichten und Behörden</li>
<li>Beratung und Vertretung in Streitigkeiten betreffend datenschutzrechtlicher Ansprüche, wie beispielsweise Auskunftsrecht, Bearbeitungsverbote und Übermittlungen ins Ausland</li>
<li>Durchsetzung und Abwehr von persönlichkeitsrechtlichen Ansprüchen, insbesondere auch im Zusammenhang mit Medienberichten</li>
<li>Vertretung von Unternehmen in behördlichen und aufsichtsrechtlichen Verfahren, beispielsweise bei Datenschutzverletzungen</li>
</ul>


Prozess- und Verfahrensführung im Bereich Datenschutz und Persönlichkeitsrecht

<ul>
<li>Entwicklung und Umsetzung von Strategien und innovativen Lösungen, um den Datenschutz in Unternehmen sowohl unter dem Schweizer Datenschutzrecht als auch der europäischen Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) sicherzustellen</li>
<li>Beratung in Bezug auf die datenschutzkonforme Nutzung neuer Technologie und die Umsetzung von Digitalisierungsprojekten</li>
<li>Ausarbeitung und Strukturierung der zur Gewährleistung des Datenschutzes notwendigen Dokumentation, wie beispielsweise Datenschutzerklärungen, Reglemente und Verträge</li>
<li>Beratung im Zusammenhang mit internationalen und gruppeninternen Datenübermittlungen und Ausarbeitung der erforderlichen Dokumentation</li>
<li>Unterstützung bei der unternehmensinternen Aufarbeitung von Datenschutzverletzungen und anderen datenschutzrechtlich relevanten Vorkommnissen</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>


Datenschutz

Prozess- und Verfahrensführung im Bereich Datenschutz und Persönlichkeitsrecht

Beratung im Datenschutzrecht

Hauptkontakte

EU Adopts AI Act

No Criminal Procedural Guarantees in Internal Investigations

Leaked Draft of EU AI Act Sheds Light on Proposed Regulation

The Legal 500 hat Homburger in 12 Kategorien als Tier 1-Kanzlei ausgezeichnet und wählt 7 Anwälte für die Hall of Fame aus

Homburger advises VectivBio with respect to the announced public cash tender offer from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals

Homburger advises Scaled Agile on its acquisition of Rentouch

Kommentar zu Art. 33–35, 40, 54, 55, 67 DSG und Art. 1 BGÖ

Informationspflichten der Bank bei Datenleaks

People Analytics in privatrechtlichen Arbeitsverhältnissen