Facts
The case concerns a dispute between an insured person and the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA) regarding the validity of evidence obtained through private surveillance. The insured person was surveilled by a private detective at the request of the liability insurer of the accident's author. The evidence obtained, including an investigation report and a video cassette, was used by the SUVA to assess the insured person's work capacity. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court after the lower instances rejected the insured person's objections to the use of this evidence.
The parties involved are the insured person, the SUVA, and the liability insurer of the accident's author. The dispute revolves around the question of whether evidence obtained through private surveillance is admissible and can be used to assess the insured person's work capacity.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of the validity of evidence obtained through private surveillance. It considered that the surveillance had been carried out lawfully, in accordance with Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB), and that the results of the surveillance could be used by the SUVA, in accordance with Articles 13 and 36 of the Federal Constitution (Cst.) as well as Articles 43, paragraph 1, and 61, letter c, of the Federal Act on the General Part of Social Insurance Law (GSSLA).
The Federal Court also examined the question of the proportionality of the surveillance. It considered that the surveillance was proportionate to the purposes pursued, namely the assessment of the insured person's work capacity, and that the means used were not excessive. It also took into account the fact that the surveillance had taken place in a public…