Facts
[A. SA], a bank established in Geneva, employed [C.] and [B.] as managers of the "Asset Management Private Banking" department. In 2010, the US authorities opened an investigation against [A. SA], suspecting it of having assisted American clients in evading their tax obligations. [A. SA] transmitted documents to the US authorities, which included the names, first names, email addresses and telephone numbers of [C.] and B.
[C.] and [B.] requested that [A. SA] provide them with a copy of the documents concerning them that had been transmitted to the US authorities. [A. SA] refused, invoking banking secrecy and its internal security rules. The employees then brought the matter before the Geneva Court of First Instance, which ordered [A. SA] to provide them with these documents.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed A. SA's appeals. It considered that the bank could not rely on Art. 47 of the Banking Act or Art. 162 of the Criminal Code to refuse to provide the employees with a copy of the documents. Indeed, the documents transmitted to the US authorities did not contain information allowing the identification of clients, and the employees were already aware of the content of the documents.
The Court then proceeded to weigh the interests in application of Art. 9(4) of the Data Protection Act. It considered that the employees' interest in obtaining a copy of the documents outweighed the bank's interest in restricting their right of access, in particular to be able to assess the risks of being questioned by the US…