Facts
X. (the Plaintiff) is a foundation that carries out the mandatory occupational pension scheme for employees and employers. Y. AG (Defendant 1) is a corporation that advises, operates and manages pension schemes. A. (Defendant 2) was a member of the Plaintiff's foundation board until June 2005 and has been the managing director of Defendant 1 since March 2004.
In December 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the administration of its foundation to Defendant 1. In July 2005, Defendant 1 contacted various companies that had previously been customers of the Plaintiff and announced the launch of new products in the area of the second pillar. The Plaintiff saw this as a planned competition and sued for the release of customer data and contacts.
The Cantonal Court of Schwyz dismissed the claim, as the conduct of the Defendants did not qualify as unfair within the meaning of Art. 2 UCA. The Plaintiff then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the lower instance. It stated that according to the case law, it must first be examined whether the conduct fulfills one of the special offenses of Art. 3-8 UCA. Only if this is not the case, can the general clause of Art. 2 UCA be applied.
In the present case, the conduct of the Defendants did not fulfill any of the special offenses. The Defendants had received the customer data within the framework of…