Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2018/2, S. 76ff. 

• Mandate content in legal advice and the claim of  a bank to  be informed about the legal concerns of its customers.  
•   Under the pretext of  due diligence,  banks are increasingly demanding information  concerning  the  legal interests of their customers.   The following applies: legal professional privilege and the right to privacy must be respected. 

Trust and secrets as basic elements of a liberal order 

«There is nothing makes a man suspect much, more than to know little» schreibt Francis Bacon und gibt gleich selber den Rat, wie dieser Argwohn zu beheben sei: «and therefore, men should remedy suspicion by procuring to know more» («Suspicion», in: The Works of Francis Bacon, Vol. 1, Philadelphia 1844). 

It has  not been  created and, to the  author’s knowledge,   has never been the subject of  a research project as to whether Francis Bacon’s works  belong to  the  reading canon of the compliance departments of banks.   However, it  seems that  the banks, consciously following Francis Bacon  or  unconsciously confirming him,  try to follow his advice strictly.  

 A few days ago, as always at this time of year,  invoices were sent to   clients  in my office. As with many other law firms, billing is  done quarterly.  Bound by the lawyer’s code of conduct, every service from a mandate is recorded. The client has the choice whether he   wants these  services  described in  detail and  listed as an attachment at the end of the invoice, or the invoice from  the list of the individual  services  wants to receive separately. 

Mr. X, a client, received the invoice without details because he  wanted  it that way  .  After a few days had passed,  Mr. X called somewhat perplexed. He  had  ordered the payment  from his  bank in Zurich  , but his account manager had  contacted him immediately that  the payment could  only be triggered if the payment had been   made. would receive  the corresponding lawyer’s invoice. The compliance department had asked for it. 

Even before  it could be explained to Mr X  that he  was  neither contractually nor legally obliged to do so, he stated that  he  had already sent the  invoice to the bank, but that the  compliance The department  would still not be  prepared to  approve  the initiation of the payment because it first had to „know“ the content of   the   invoiced services. 

It  doesn’t happen often, but with this answer,  the phone receiver almost fell off. In order   to be absolutely sure, the   client was  asked in writing whether he  had really been correctly understood, that the  bank   would have to know the content of the  mandate  before  it fulfils its contractual obligation to  trigger payment. The client confirmed this and was surprised himself. Shortly thereafter, a telephone conversation took place with  the bank’s account manager, in which the latter  confirmed that  the bank  needed this information,  actually meaning that  the  bank  had it  wanted. 

Later,  when I got home,  I dug out my old edition of Bacon  . And lo and behold, in the Meditationes Sacrae (1597) 77  the Latin saying „ipsa scientia  potestas est“ appears, which his secretary at the time,  Thomas Hobbes, later described in Leviathan as “   scientia potentia  est“   (albeit with less conviction). It  is  this quote by Bacon that has been quoted again and   again since then and is a popular subject of PowerPoint presentations and hobby state philosophers sometimes  more, sometimes less taken out of context.  . 

So, according to  Bacon,   knowledge is power.       Consequently,  power   can  be  protected by protecting  the knowledge   that constitutes  power.  This  elementary  task falls  to  the mystery.  From  the biblical  beginning,   in which God deliberately  does not  reveal to Adam and Eve the knowledge of the world, to the priestly castes  of ancient  Babylon  and Egypt, to    the medieval  monasteries    ,  about the emergence of state secrets  parallel  to   the emergence    of nation states  and   continuing to  this day,     secrecy has   a  power-establishing  task. In the   context of the     rule of law,   however, this power-establishing task   changes to   a  power-limiting  function: secrets  apply  not  only to the powerful, but    above all      to  the   powerful. state  power. The individual is  protected by   the state power by providing   him with   secrets  materially (e.g.: personal rights, informational  self-determination, banking secrecy), but  also  formally  (e.g.     Prohibition of torture)     and   granted  as  part of his rights. The  concession of the state   to  its citizens to   have    secrets is the consensual  foundation  of the rulers  with    the governed  in a    constitutional state. . The omniscient and thus  omnipotent  state is   rejected, because without omniknowledge     and without the   right  to omniknowledge  there     is  no  omnipotence    . The possibility  of secrets  then  allows  a distinction to be   made  between  public  and private  life.  While  in  the former  everyone   can see  and participate,   the latter forms  a  protection of the  individual   from  his  fellow human beings. Between  these  two  pillars, protection    from the state   and protection from fellow human beings,    lies  the breeding ground for  individual  freedom  in a  liberal  constitutional state.        Crucially,  this   area  protected  by  secrets  must  not  arouse  suspicion. If he does do so for  reasons  of curiosity  or   the desire for power, which   is all too  human and should not    be   preventable,  the law intervenes  and protects  over  the      Mystery  through  the individual. The individual is  thus   shielded against  the suspicion  of the state  and his fellow human beings.            

Back to the bank and its compliance department. One could  now go on  for pages about the impudence of a Swiss  bank to  want to see the bill of a  Swiss law firm, about the lack     of a contractual  or legal       The fact   that  if the  bank’s request had  gone directly to  the lawyers,  it  would have been an incitement to violate attorney-client privilege   The   fact that this  generates costs for the customer,  the  fact  that it is not the bank’s  task to prevent  the execution of payment orders  from the receipt of payment orders   other information that does  not affect the customer-bank relationship dependent on 78.   However,  there is enough literature available on all this, the position of legal professional privilege in a constitutional state has been dealt with  in detail and the mania of the banks, with   which  they carry out  their supposed duties of care is now also well known. 

The finger was therefore placed on suspicion. It  is   this suspicion, together with the now almost hysterical fear, that is most likely to shake the  foundations of the liberal constitutional state.   Should suspicion of  the state and the citizens among themselves (again)  increasingly  be legally permitted and should the suspicious be given further „rights of intervention“  vis-à-vis   the secret bearers, then  The legal seed, always understood as a construct of defensive rights, which create spaces of freedom, should quickly face its end  . The image of man on which our legal system is based is based  on an individual  who is not accountable for his actions,  as long as they take place  within the legally permissible framework.    Neither to  the state nor to its fellow human beings. 

The much-heard formula „I have nothing to hide“, which    understands the call for  state intervention rights, especially  after terrorist attacks, is the gateway for individual   restrictions. .  Apart from the    fact that  everyone has  something  to  hide (and sometimes just shame),  this formula admits to the suspicion of  having a legal justification. The sufficient suspicion in criminal law,  without which no coercive measure may be ordered, is symbolic of the fact that it  takes more than suspicion to uphold the right  to  Keeping secrets. 

However,  while the suspicion of the state has been increasingly reduced since the  beginning of the Enlightenment  (admittedly with major relapses in the  20th century).            Voices are  becoming louder who  loosen these barriers for fear of terror and catastrophes.  want. This conflict is   far from  over and its outcome is likely to be  groundbreaking for  the  continued existence of the liberal constitutional state of Western character.  The fact that things  can be done differently is shown by the  bonus system now implemented in China, which  evaluates every private  and  public action of individuals in relation to state doctrine and  consequently rewards or sanctions them with bonus points. 

In  the shadow  of this conflict,   however,   increasing  requirements  on banks  and financial intermediaries  have  led  to  state  control mechanisms, with  all  their  restrictions,   now being  transferred to  private individuals. . The verification  of incoming and outgoing money   has  become    mandatory  for banks and is  understood  as a  measure  against  terrorism  and money laundering. However,  the fines and the negative  consequences  in the form  of image losses  due to   media  crucifixion, which   threaten in the  event of failed  due diligence obligations, lead  to   banks    becoming more and more cautious  and   so that they  become  more and  more suspicious.   Under  the umbrella  of compliance, they   assume state  control tasks  and become  state  implementing agents.    However, while  the state  can  only   become  active in the event  of a  concrete  suspicion,   banks  also refuse  harmless  and completely  legal  transactions if  they  themselves   would, nota bene at  its own  discretion,   take risks. As     a result, the “ chilling effect“       achieved extends  control  by   the state  and, in fact, by   private individuals in areas protected   by  secrets. Incidentally, private individuals   themselves  have    discovered the possibility of   playing off the suspicion  (especially  of  the banks) against  the law: in another    case,     a   private  law dispute  of  another  client a   London court  a  world wide  freezing order (WFO) against  his assets.   Of course, this instrument cannot  be used  directly  in Switzerland, 79   requires exequatur. However, the other side  threatened   to   send the WFO and  all  documentation  directly to the banks in order     to    bypass           the state courts. enforce. These  account freezes  would  not have   been carried out     by   state  courts  or  public prosecutor’s  orders, but    by the intervention   of the banks  at  their own  discretion. The result , however ,   would be the same  and it shows the   results  to which   the increasing  suspicion  can  lead. Only  the indication that  such  an  approach  would   trigger  criminal  consequences prevented  the other side from   doing so  in this case. How  the banks,   on the other hand,   would  react if  they  were  „only“  informed about  the  ruling by telephone  and without  presenting the WFO remains  to be seen.              

Finally, the „side effect“  should be mentioned that the information, which is  demanded and obtained out of suspicion,  itself has a value per se. This is particularly evident in this  specific case. The  mandate content required by the bank  is unrelated  to the statutory due diligence obligations.  Rather,  the bank  demanded additional information to which it was   not entitled in order  to generate more knowledge about its customer.  But if knowledge   is  indeed power and Bacon   is right, then it  quickly becomes clear how this  knowledge  puts the bank in a privileged, i.e.  more powerful position  . It may freeze the client’s funds and  refuse payments without consultation   and without being requested by the  courts,  for example in the  case  listed here only hypothetically,    that the content of the mandate contains advice in criminal proceedings and  that this fact  alone is uncomfortable for  the bank  . The customer can defend himself against this approach, but this defense is costly  and time-consuming and even a victory in court does not guarantee  the  It is not possible to survive the facts  of the case unscathed. 

 So  it remains the case  : If suspicion is  allowed, it unfolds a power-protecting function, because in order to (supposedly)  counter  it,  the abandonment of secrets is required, which  actually  should have a power-limiting effect. Francis Bacon himself  wanted to combat suspicion with more knowledge.  For historical reasons, however, he has  not been able to  recognize the elementary necessity of secrets for the existence of the constitutional state  . And yet, in the introduction to  his text on suspicion,  he  seems to  have sensed that sooner or later  the suspicion of  the state restricts freedom and leads to  dictatorship. leads: „They [suspicions] dispose kings to tyranny [… ].» 

 Incidentally, the bank  paid after being emphatically informed  that  the content of the  mandate  was legally protected and that it  had  no claim to know it.

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2019/1, S. 34ff. 

• The relationship between politics and truth 
• The claim   that  politics  uses truth as the basis of its actions is important, but more important is a fundamentally critical attitude towards politics. 

Fake news and alternative facts.  These terms have been haunting the media since  Donald Trump took office. The term fake news may have existed for over a hundred years, but  it  was only through social  media that  it  became a  certain prominence.  In addition,  Donald Trump  regularly uses it to  discredit what  he  sees as false reporting. The term „alternative facts“, on the other hand, is a word by  Kellyanne Conway, advisor to Donald Trump, who thus obviously made false statements by the then White  House press secretary. , Sean Spicer,  tried to justify the  number of visitors at Donald Trump’s inauguration in front of the Capitol. „Alternative facts“ was voted „Unword of the Year 2017“  in Germany and Austria.  

Both terms,  especially with  regard to Donald Trump, have provoked enormous outrage in intellectual circles.   Critical voices rise  and warn that these terms would pose a threat to  the democratic order,  and  comparisons are drawn to Orwell’s 1984.  In  addition,  various media keep constantly   updated lists  of  Donald  Trump’s alleged lies and never tire of emphasizing how  often and how intensively he lies.  

The core of   the outrage, from regulars‘ tables to   feature pages, is the  following: The President of  the   United States lies and tries to justify his policy with facts that are not the  Truth. It is criticized that  politics (specifically: Donald Trump)  no  longer feels bound to the truth, but tries to seduce  the people  by lying. A Pied Piper who does not  play the flute, but strives for the alternative facts. And because truth is such  a noble value,  almost everyone  feels called to join this crusade in defense of truth. From  the pulpits of  the media houses, the fight to defend the truth is  proclaimed and armed with facts and investigative journalism is drawn   into the field.  

One   may  agree with this goings-on, one may even endorse it  (who does not love the truth?), but one must  also recognize the great danger.   Without any justification,  politics is exposed to the demand to  be guided by truth.  But truth, this is  simply misunderstood, is not a concept for politics.   Truth is a philosophical, religious and partly metaphysical concept.  Politics,  understood as a struggle for domination, has  nothing to do with truth  . The idea that  politics should be guided by truth is,  of course,  not new. In Plato’s Politeia this is clearly propagated, but Plato does not make  the mistake of using the concept of truth in politics by  politicians or by a  democratic one.  To want to  fulfill order. In its  ideal political state, which is  subordinate to truth and  committed to it,  the rule lies with philosophers. They alone, who have recognized the truth, may govern and  impose one, namely their  , ideal state  on the governed.  It is not    without reason that   Plato’s concept, although philosophically appealing, has been called fascistic 35.   For the truth of one does not have to be  the concept according to which     another must  be guided in his way of life. This also applies, however much they resist it  , to the natural sciences with their epistemic and falsifiable/verifiable methods.  Truth is   absolute only if  it is accepted and recognized  as such. 

     Propagating that politics should be guided by truth ignores the fact that this  has never been the case historically.  Politics is  the struggle for domination  and in the struggle for  domination all means  are always used. And if  politics   is   not conducted by the means of the strongest, but by   democratic means,  then politics  is always an attempt to convince the majority.  .  That this  should  be done on the basis of truth is perhaps a pious wish, but certainly not reality  and  not a realistic undertaking.    Persuasion is always an act of trying   to  declare subjectivity to be  objectivity.  To what extent this  is  compatible with truth is  not clear. 

The misuse  of means for the purpose of domination  and attainment of domination is not prevented by the fact that the  politicians (  the rulers) adhere to   the truth, but that   whose striving for domination is limited by laws. It is the law and the  legally defined and legitimized institutions that prevent  the abuse of power, not a narrow-lipped confession that domination in  Truth would be coupled.  Donald Trump had to experience this for himself at this year’s Shut Down. The  lack of laws and legally defined and legitimized institutions may  well lead to rulers presenting their truth as true  and   acting  on it. .     Recall  Colin Powell’s remarkable appearance in the  UN Security Council in February 2003, a few weeks before the Iraq war,  and the lack of   order.  I would like to    ask   the President-in-Office of the Council whether he is   prepared to accept the Commission’s proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment and the protection  of  the environment. 

 But the law and its institutions alone are  not enough.  In  addition,  responsible citizens are needed who  are willing  to form  their own picture of the facts  and events  and thus arrive at a truth. What is needed are these responsible citizens who  critically and constantly question the promises of  politicians and politicians who treat fake news and alternative facts as   what  they do. are: opinions and interpretations of events. 

The attempt  to put politics and politicians on a leash of truth may  seem noble  and sublime, but the  result is  the  delegation of responsibility, away   from  the governed to  the rulers. The people, the original sovereign, hand over the  responsibility of   determining the truth to the rulers,  thereby empowering them to assume the position of   sovereign. This  may be very  convenient, this may    be very relieving and the hope for a good, fair and  truthful ruler may be lived. But at  the  same time it is not only the abandonment of the (sometimes  perceived as annoying) individual responsibility of   everyone, but also the abandonment  of sovereignty and the voluntary subordination to each other.   a concept of truth that, even if  ideally based on scientific facts,  is an imposed concept of truth. And as a result,  an imposed concept of truth may lead to  calm and relief, but  also to the  restriction of freedom and sooner or later   into  a fascistic entity in which truth and its definition  mutate into the  task of  the state and  are withdrawn from the individual. 

One  might object that  the         media’s   outcry  against  Donald Trump’s  alleged  lies  at least  makes each   individual  more sensitive  to truth and facts.   36.  This, however,  would   require that the media  would  indeed primarily  exercise    their  role as the  fourth  (control) power. And indeed, any  journalistic “ looking  at the fingers  of politics“ is  helpful, but the stark  divergence  between  the listing  of alleged  lies  of Donald Trump compared    to    those  other  politicians           suggest that  it   is less  about  convicting a  notorious  liar  to  save democracy  (because  such  liars  are  present in all      In    this context,    it is important to stress the importance of the role of the social partners in the development   of  newspapers     and online  subscriptions.  Trump polarizes  and attacks  against  Trump are    just sales-promoting. Truth, in other  words,  is defended not   because   it is   the truth, but  because  its  defense    is  economically  valuable. And  as much   as the venerable  media houses  try to   present  themselves  as guardians    of the   truth, the  more it  becomes  clear that  they  too    Subordinate the search for truth  to their  economic  and power-political  interests.      Above all , however, the control function  of the media  cannot be     equated  with  the reputation that  politics must   be  guided  by truth .   The former  is capable of   revealing  certain  transgressions  on the part of politicians  and politicians, whereas  the latter   is  not  only  an  ideological  undertaking, but  also  implicitly  suggests that   the media      To master truth  and   always defend it  without  weighing  interests.    Various examples show that  this is not  always  the case   (keyword  Claas  Relotius).         

  If truth is  to be understood  in a political context,  it can only mean  an individual’s search for truth  as his protective mechanism against domination and against the collective  . The attempt  to  bring truth into  the politics and responsibilities of the rulers is not only absurd, but also dangerous, because  this individual concept leads  to  a concept  that can legitimize domination. This is fine, for  example, for religions and their  institutions, because they not  only derive their  legitimacy  from this self-defined truth, but also their doctrine and  doctrine.  their world view. Europe has  experienced several centuries of the rule of  institutions  such as the churches, with the claim   to  be able to speak truth and  define truth. It required enlightenment  and the   idea that truth  must  not be dictated and predetermined by third parties, who in the worst case also exercise domination.  , but that the  definition  of truth must be  an individual matter, as the responsibility of the responsible person to qualify the statements of others and  to  take action against them  .  or to agree with them). It is   therefore not surprising that  every  dictatorial regime, every proto-fascist order, sooner or later establishes  a universally valid truth that contradicts  the Individual  is not allowed (Orwell sends his regards). 

The talk and excitement about fake news and alternative facts  is certainly not aimed directly at creating such an order.   But by formulating  the claim to tie politics to truth,  the breeding ground is  created for  the possibility of  a policy and of politicians who are precisely   the  serve supposed truth in order  to gain domination  and   legitimize domination. What  can  still seem appealing at first glance is in the end the creeping development  to  de-individualize truth in order  to  make it suitable for the masses   and thus   to create  a To create a concept of domination   (keyword Plato). 

  The claim that  politics   must  be guided by  truth is only a little removed from the admission that politics may define truth. From  the former to the  latter,   only a few measures are needed; history  bears witness to many examples.   If this happens and a dominion receives (or acquires)  the privilege of   defining truth,  then the downfall of 37 freedom is  also initiated.  Freedom,   however one may define it   ,  always begins with being able to  define and classify one’s environment and the events in it.  Freedom without the right to live one’s own truth is  not freedom. The restrictions   imposed  on freedom in  a  constitutional state are a compromise based on the observance of  universal rules for the purpose of peaceful coexistence. ,  but not with the intention  of  prescribing concepts of thought and  truth. Thoughts  are free. And they must remain so. 

If  one demands of politics that  it should  be  true and  that  it should be   based on the truth,  one gives up responsibility.  If, on the other hand, one does not expect   truth  from politics,  one remains sharpened and critical of  all statements of the rulers or those who  want to become rulers.     Rather,  such a  sharpened and critical attitude forces individuals to  engage with politics, to get  actively involved and not in anticipation of a   good ruler to  give up responsibility and thus freedom. The individual thus becomes  a „Zoon Politikon“ and a free human being.

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2021/2, S. 4ff. 

• The change of law  through the acceleration of the economy and social structures.   
•   The law  is  increasingly exposed to  social changes occurring at shorter intervals.  This endangers fundamental principles  of  constitutional law. 

When Marcel Niggli, editor-in-chief and publisher of ContraLegem, asked me if I would like to join the editorial staff of ContraLegem, it took me less than five minutes to accept. This may sound like a quick shot, a lack of consideration, but five minutes is a small eternity in today’s media society. Some may smile, perhaps disagree, even demand a somewhat in-depth clarification from a lawyer, but for a tweet that sends hundreds onto the streets and encourages them to attack people, storm state and private buildings and block roads, it really doesn’t take much longer. So five minutes for a decision is relative. One may rightly object that personal decisions have always been made in significantly shorter periods of time, one thinks of the famous „gut decisions“. But what is acceptable for personal decisions now also seems to apply to social communication through the immediacy of the means of communication (keyword: social media). The tweets already mentioned illustrate this perfectly. 

  It is therefore not surprising that  politicians are desperately trying to   keep up with the   speed of communication in the  media society and that political debates are  increasingly tempo  and  less  This is the  first time that  we have had a debate on this subject in the European Now,  social acceleration in communication is not a phenomenon of  our time, telegrams, telephones and faxes have always  exerted accelerating effects on the respective social structures. And  politics has  always been guided by this stream  of accelerating communication,  for example election campaigns at   the beginning of the 19th century.   It is    located  in  the district of São Paulo. 

What is new, however,  is that the judiciary allows itself to  be harnessed into this game of race.  Of course, if  politics  and its means  of  communication change,  the judiciary will (have to) adapt to it, but for some time  now  ,    It is a  question of  adopting the functioning of the policy tel quel. Focusing  on speed  rather than  content may  be  useful, perhaps even necessary,  for policy,  but it means  that the end rather than the means are  increasingly coming  to the fore.  when it  comes  to formulating and  debating political goals.  For an increasing concentration on tempo  allows only the  intended end  to be formulated, while the explanation of the  means and  the critical consideration of  the  end raise questions of   In this context   ,  it is important to stress the    importance of the role of the social partners in the  competition  because there  is simply no time  for this and because the   audience’s attention span is less and less sufficient for this. The  climate debate makes this very clear: the climate must  be saved and everything must  be subordinated to  this  goal. The discussion as to whether the proposed means (reduction of  CO2 emissions, subsidization of electric cars, etc.)   suitable 5and  appropriate, has little  chance  to develop. 

For the judiciary and the law in general, this  means that  they  increasingly focus on  the purpose and clear  legal institutions and guidelines that  slow down   the – rapid – achievement of  the  purpose.  could be dubbed. The ruling of   the Lausanne District Court – to  stay with the climate debate – which  had protected the occupation of a bank branch  by activists as a justifying emergency, instead of  dismissing it because of   Condemning trespassing   is only one prominent example (cf.  see  our videos 1a and 1b). The reference to  the justifying state of emergency,  which one  cannot get  rid of in any case, was less the result of a clean legal dispute, but arose from  the  The need arises  as a court  to somehow justify the  exculpation of young people,  which is perceived as politically and medially correct (we are not yet to the extent that judgments are given without justification). 

 It is undisputed  that justice  and justice are never completely detached from politics.    Don’t forget  that the country’s top judges  are  nominated by  political parties  (and  are coming under increasing  political pressure).   However, it  is problematic when the  judiciary and the law  adapt to  politics so much  (one is inclined to say: currying favor) that  the boundaries of  political debate  and  legal structures are becoming blurred.  Of course,  this is not a  plea for  justice and a law that  should not change  .  However  , they are intended to provide politics and society with the structures that  we know after so many bad  experiences in Europe’s  past that minorities are minorities.  protect,  guarantee the rule of law and  strive for a balance in the weighting of arguments.  If one  aims only at  the purpose,  the door  opens for a dynamic that  makes maximum demands and  has  no time  for compromises. This is because compromises  are possible  in terms  of means rather than ends.   It remains irrelevant whether the lack of  time is the symptom  of a  fast-paced world  or is used  as a means  of avoiding discussion.  If maximum demands  are then  accompanied by a moral claim to be on the right side of history, then  – despite or precisely because  of the  Claim to do good for all people  – a totalitarian path taken. Hell is known to be  full of people who  wanted good. 

This has become clear in  almost every major political debate in recent months, be it in relation to climate rescue,  women’s rights, gender debate or BlackLivesMatter: The  political actors and the media   do not formulate  negotiable maximum demands, stifle criticism  in the approach and  thus prevent any critical debate.   But those who make maximum demands and place only the purpose at  the centre of  political life  are putting the cart before the horse  .   For while a free society  should  debate the guidelines within which everyone should be  able to develop and  seize their opportunities,  recent  political discussions appear   Always results-oriented.  If one  breaks the whole thing  down to the original element  of every political discussion, that of justice and its core, equality, then   a change of    equal opportunities  emerges.  away and towards  equality of results. 

However, a society that  strives for equality of results  is by definition totalitarian, because equality does not allow other interests to  develop as a  result. All other results are understood as  annoying at best,  as an attack at worst. And a society that  of its own accord  defines  or  allows to be defined  equality of results (what  it must  do in order  to  achieve it) must also necessarily claim to 6the absolute truth   and  to know the good in itself.  Because only if the truth and  the good are known,   the desired result can be  legitimized. A  result that can be  achieved by all, which  is not based  on truth and goodness, is inevitably delegitimized by arbitrariness, so that it  begins to falter.  The fact that the definition  of truth and good is  also  exposed to arbitrariness is  , of course, another  piece of paper. 

 This development is reinforced  by the fact that  equality of results has  it easier in a world that  measures and quantifies everything. The development of recent  years shows that  decisions – including political ones – are increasingly based on  these measurements and quantifications, namely through collected data sets,    be taken.  Concrete results can be  measured, quantified and  bundled as data sets, while the question of opportunities always requires  lengthy  analysis. It should therefore come as no surprise that the increasing depiction of  human action in data sets  politically  and in the media   favours equality of results.  As a result,  measuring  and  presenting pointedly is easier to  understand than lengthy debates about whether there  are equal opportunities for everyone. 

Finally, the fixation on equality of results also avoids the  difficult confrontation with (personal) responsibility.  If the purpose is  clearly formulated and  the  desired result is defined, then personal  failure as  well as  personal success become  secondary, because  the lead lies with the    Collective. Questions about the individual use of  (equal) opportunities and the resulting  consequences become superfluous, because only the result counts.  However, this   also means that where the individual deviates and does not or does   not want  to   achieve the result on his own  , the collective claims to intervene. The debate on the question of  whether school canteens are allowed  to   offer meat shows that  such intervention can be achieved first  through  incentives (keyword „nudging“) and then through bans.  is carried out. 

If  one  steps   into observant  distance, it becomes  clear that  this  political  and increasingly  legal  development    ultimately amounts  to  a   concrete  result: the reversal  of a  long-standing  , in the   West hard-won  order  on the ideals    of the Enlightenment.   The question   of the „who“, the „actor“ and his  characteristics    is increasingly becoming    the focus  of discussions.      For this, the discussion   after the action, the discussion  about    the evaluation  of a  certain  action  (or  omission)   is suppressed. This is  hardly  surprising, because the fixation on results favors the    „who“ over      the    action, because  characteristics  (age, gender, skin color  , etc.)   are more   objectifiable – and  therefore  more measurable  – than  actions in  which  the subjective  element always   causes difficulties.      But  those who (again) begin to     evaluate people – especially    legally  – according  to  their  characteristics, cannot  avoid categories   (of people)  to  create. The     ever-increasing    number of genders  makes  this clear  and paradoxically emphasizes  (in an  inevitably  discriminatory  way)   the question  of  gender   rather than gender  to    overcome them.  But  then    political  and media  categories  of people (LGBT members, white  old  men, women, blacks, etc.)     The   road  to  Auschwitz has finally  begun. And   here, too, good  intentions  do not give  any  security not   to  end up there, but  rather  increase  the danger.    Anyone who  divides  people into categories –   even  if only  for  a  noble  goal    –   inevitably discriminates.      And so   we run the risk  that  law no   longer primarily evaluates  actions  (or  omissions), but  the qualities    of man. When the   Cyclops, blinded by  Odysseus,   asks  him  screaming  for  his  name,   he answers only  with  „Outis“.  Nobody. And this nobody  is  the foundation of   our  liberal  7Western civilization. The monster   is   not confronted with  the qualities of man, but it is  forced to   be content with   the action    of the individual  and     to deal    with  it.     .  No one  is  everyone, and therefore  irrelevant. The   plot is relevant   and it is not           for nothing    that   Odysseus‘ torments begin when  he   reveals himself  in a  fit  of megalomania.          

A   judgment delivered this year by the European Court  of Human Rights (Vavricka and others v. The  Czech Republic), which  supports the obligation for children in the Czech Republic (regardless of the  COVID pandemic), clearly shows  that in order to answer the question  of whether the public interest (compulsory vaccination  for   the  purpose of Prevention   of  the spread of  a disease)  or the individual interest (right to  refuse vaccination)  is preferred, two categories were decisive: vaccinated vs.   Unvaccinated.   One judge rightly    pointed out in his dissenting opinion  that a serious debate on whether  the refusal of  vaccination for non-communicable diseases would be in the  The  same mass  had to be subordinated to   the common good (i.e.  the obligation to vaccinate)  as in the case of infectious diseases.   As a result,  the court decided on the basis of the categories vaccinated/unvaccinated, based on the   desired result, not  on the basis  of   the   chosen means. Think  of the  five minutes mentioned at the beginning: they  are never  enough to evaluate an action,  however clear, the subjective and  objective  To identify the facts of  this act,  to examine the causality of damages or profits.   However, five minutes are sufficient with the help of  technical means to  capture primary and secondary characteristics of a person. The central question  remains: do we want  legal consequences based on  the five minutes? What  may  be sufficient for a  personal decision and based on intuition  must not become the  yardstick of a legal system. 

  The creation  of categories  also has   the consequence that  those   assigned to them  are  understood  as a  collective. For       example,  the debate  on women’s equality  assumes that  all women   have  the same  concerns  and needs.  These  and similar  debates   are   conducted so sharply  that  it is   hardly possible  to    seriously discuss why  there  are  far fewer  women than  men  in      companies. Management positions    .  It  is  simply demanded that   this   must  change in the future.  Apart  from  the   fact that  all people of the  female sex  are  treated  as a  collective  with  identical  wishes  and needs,   it shows    a  worldview that  the clothing    a   management position  in a  company  as  the ultimate  goal  of professional  realization. As a result,   quotas  are  not  only    imposed on companies, but  also a   uniform  and by no means  undisputed  world view  is given to  women as an  ideal. The  debate   on     women’s equality   is a   good  example because  it is,   at its  core, a  political  debate that does not  promote   legal equality.   , i.e. equality   (which already exists), but  the social  equality  of women.    The fact that      legal  means   are required for this ( cf. Art. 734f CO) does not change  this, but  merely  clearly shows that  the law  (equal  rights  for all, which    is already     is politically  instrumentalised in   order to  achieve  equality of results at the  level  of   company (law) (as   many  men  as  women in certain countries).    Management positions). It is not  for nothing that       these  quotas  are  most strongly rejected  by women who already  hold  management positions. The performance principle   as  an inherent  part  of any  debate  about equal opportunities  gives way  here to   a    vehemently  demanded but   reduced  to  the gender  of the cadre  equality of results.  If one also wanted to     be   consistent,   one would have to    ask oneself why   a 50   /50 quota  in management positions  should    not  also apply  in other  professions  – and why  it should be   8  It     is  only  possible for management positions at all, and not  for all levels.              

Finally,  the renunciation of the ideals of the Enlightenment also means that morality now  takes precedence over law.  For enlightenment may no longer  be  en vogue  in a  collectivist world,  but at least it provides the ethical and ideological foundation that  makes a liberal constitutional state possible in the first place.   If one rejects the  ideals of the Enlightenment,  one  would at least  have   to have the courage to  reject  the liberal constitutional state and  to demand a system of values oriented towards characteristics rather than actions.  .    There are plenty of states that  serve as role models, past and  present. Whether the  groups that feel discriminated  against would be  better off  in these  models/states may of course be doubted.  What is uneasy,  however,  is the  fact that the  collectivist  currents in the  West go hand in hand  with the strengthening of collectivist  orders   in China, Russia and the   immediate Periphery of Europe and it  is  only irony of history  that  the collectivist-oriented  morality that permeates our political debates is the Kerkoporta, by totalitarian ideas penetrate the liberal value system of the West.

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2022/1, S. 4ff. 

• Swiss law under pressure from  international developments.  
• The law in Switzerland is coming under  increasing pressure from international developments, be it  the climate movement,  the Ukraine war or the Covid pandemic.   This pressure is triggered by the media.   

On Monday evening, 28.  February 2022, Zurich’s Grossmünster will shine  in blue and yellow as a sign of solidarity with Ukraine,  which has been attacked by Russian troops.   According to media reports,  20,000 people  march  peacefully through the city with candles and posters;  they protest against the invasion of Russian troops, one hears slogans  again  and again in  the alleys of the Niederdorf.   

A few hours earlier,  the  Federal Council announced that it would now implement the  EU’s sanctions packages of 23 and 25 November.  It was the first time that  the European Parliament had taken  over. The assets  of  persons  and companies listed by the EU  are also frozen in Switzerland with immediate effect   and  financial sanctions are being enforced against Russian President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister   Mikhail Mishustin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. As a basis  for  this decision, the  Federal Council  declares its desire to  strengthen the effect of EU sanctions against Russia and  thus also decides to revoke  the  2009 agreement on the  To   partially  suspend visa facilitation for  Russians and to  close Swiss airspace to all aircraft with Russian markings  . In  the same announcement, the Federal Council also  reaffirmed Switzerland’s solidarity with Ukraine. The  vast majority of the media appreciates this announcement in  the late afternoon and supports the measures taken, after days earlier the Federal Council had been dismissed for   its  The Commission has    been strongly criticised by  the  vast majority of the media in its  cautious attitude towards sanctions against Russia. 

  Regardless of the media response and with a less superficial view,  however, the announcement of  the Federal Council of 28.   February 2022  as the biggest foreign policy break in Swiss politics  and as a paradigm for (foreign) politics in the   age of the media society.  

 The Federal Council substantively bases the adoption of EU sanctions on Art. 185 Federal Constitution (external and internal security): 

1. The Federal Council takes measures to safeguard Switzerland’s external security, independence and neutrality . 

2. It shall take measures to safeguard internal security. 

3. It may,  directly on the basis of this Article,  issue regulations and orders to  prevent  serious disturbances which have occurred or   are  imminently threatened  with  public  policy or internal   or external disturbances.    This is the first time that we have had a debate on   this subject Such regulations should be limited  in time. 

4. In urgent cases, he  can mobilize troops.  If he  offers more than  4000 members of the armed forces for active service or if  this deployment is expected to last longer than three weeks,  the Federal Assembly must be convened immediately.  

The Federal Council may therefore  take measures if they affect Switzerland’s external security, independence and neutrality. 

 By adopting the EU sanctions,  not only foreign law  is adopted, but also a  type  of law that  results in a  clear foreign policy position of Switzerland.   This clear foreign policy position is contrary to independence  and neutrality and could only be justified       – based on the wording of the law – by external security. .  If, however,  external security is  intended through a clear  foreign policy positioning,  this leads to a contradiction  – not only semantic –  that  is clear political  positioning.    the opposite of  independence and neutrality, so that  external security on  the  one hand and independence and  neutrality on the other are necessarily mutually exclusive. This finding, as banal as it seems, is an epochal breach  of Swiss  foreign policy, even of the Swiss raison d’être, which does not regard  Switzerland’s  independence and neutrality as a contradiction. Restriction or even endangerment of external security, but as its basis  . 

As soon as  the sanction was announced,  a public debate  began  about this decision by the Federal Council and whether it  buried Switzerland’s neutrality. Thus it was  rightly  pointed out (cf. Marco Jorio in the NZZ of 14.  March 2022) that  there is a distinction between neutrality law, which does not allow participation in wars, no  crossing of territory  by warring troops,  no state  The supply of arms  to warring parties, and does not provide for the  formation of combatant troops for  a  warring party, as well as the policy of neutrality, which  includes all measures taken  by  a State through its   In   order  to ensure the credibility of  its neutrality in the event of war.    According to the prevailing opinion, the adoption of the EU sanctions has not violated  the right of neutrality. Whether, on the other hand,  it is still possible  to speak of Switzerland’s  policy of neutrality  at  all, is extremely  questionable. 

  Swiss neutrality has been criticized in the past – not always without reason –   especially in  dealing with those persecuted by the National Socialist regime in Germany  (e.g.   Case Spring).   Critics   have rightly  pointed out that  the refusal to grant protection  to persecuted individuals is difficult to justify tolerably with foreign policy ideals.   This is one of the  reasons why Switzerland has been a member of the  city since the  end of the 2nd century.  During  the World War, neutrality was  not defined as a „look away“ or  “  a delegation of responsibility“,  but was  guided by the recognition  that international  Conflicts are complex and that the  parties involved should be  able to rely on an independent mediator  for their resolution. 

   Acknowledging that international conflicts are complex is the  basis for  understanding and ending these conflicts. Truth is the first casualty in all wars (as  Hiram Johnson did) and a clear    good-evil division  of the actors may be necessary  for the achievement of  political goals.   but does not  help to understand the conflict. Rather, the classification of the actors as good  and evil at the  beginning of  a  conflict represents  a moral and political judgment before the facts are available and – here it  becomes   difficult for conflict resolution – is tantamount to  prejudging the actors. Don’t get me  wrong: The condemnation of actions (e.g. bombardment of  the civilian population, illegal invasion, etc.)  is not to be equated with the condemnation of  the  actors and their considerations and motives   underlying such actions, one thinks of the different moral  evaluation  The bombardments of London and Leipzig during the 2nd century  World War II. The condemnation of actions is  a sign that there are clear values of what is       acceptable (not only legally) to do (or refrain from) regardless   of the actor. The condemnation of the 6 actors, on the other hand,   is a  clear positioning, a partisanship that  makes  conflict resolution more difficult. Only if the actors are  not treated a priori „neutrally“  can  they be brought together at the same table.   No one will go to  the  negotiating table  when the verdict on him has already been passed. 

 By adopting the EU sanctions against Russia, Switzerland  has   clearly positioned itself in foreign policy  and  largely  abandoned its policy of neutrality. You can want   that, but you also have  to say goodbye to  the idea  that Switzerland  will now  be able to  make an essential contribution to ending this conflict. And while it is   not   yet entirely clear at this point how  Switzerland’s  external  security will be protected by the adoption of the sanctions,  it  is possible to  say   that  this will not reduce the suffering of  the  civilian population in Ukraine, but will make diplomatic   mediation  between  the parties to the conflict  more difficult.  Switzerland’s  leadership will probably  be extended. This rupture  also means that Switzerland  must begin to redefine its role in world politics.  Her role as a mediator in international conflicts has   been severely scratched. 

   However, Switzerland’s break with the guiding principles of  its foreign policy to date also  serves as a paradigm of the media society, without which it  cannot be  understood. 

The partisanship   – also  moral  –  at the expense  of independence  and neutrality  took place  under pressure  from the media. Nothing  is   known of pressure  from other  states  and     has  not been communicated in     this way by the  Federal Council. The clear  partisanship of the   Federal Council is   all the  more   surprising as  experience  – also  in casu  – shows that  Swiss banks  are completely  independent  of Federal Council    decisions.  Sanctions  – e.g.   of the US and the EU – usually for themselves  in order    to be   able to continue to process  transactions  in USD and EURO   and   not to  be targeted by  foreign  authorities. The      Federal Council’s announcements that it will   adopt the EU sanctions make  the work of Swiss banks  easier,   but they  do not  affect  them. The Federal Council has     thus not  focused on the actual  implementation  of  the sanctions  –   in the   financial sector , they  were carried out  autonomously by  the banks    and from  their     Interests    – but  on the external image  of Switzerland.  Politics  in the media society  is  always, or  above  all, perception   . In this  light      , the more  than  questionable  appearance  of the Federal Council President  Cassis, who at a     pro-Ukrainian  demonstration with  a  live   Circuit  with    the Ukrainian  President  Zelenskyj  not  only  certified him to  defend the values  of Switzerland, but    then also  on Twitter   as a friend   („my friend“) described.  Zelenskyj , on the other hand,   was more of a   realpolitiker  and used  this    media attention to   demand the freezing of   Russian  funds in Switzerland   and Nestlé, one   of the largest  Swiss  politicians.   To  criticize employers  and taxpayers because Nestlé still  supplies  products  to  Russia. In essence,   a  foreign  head of state  was  courted  by the   Federal President, who   tried to   dictate to him how to  govern. The Federal President  even  expressed his gratitude    for this. What   was   legally  and politically a   very  questionable  appearance by   Cassis was  largely  celebrated  by most of the   media, which demanded a  clear  partisanship  of Switzerland.         

But this „cry“ for   partisanship  by   the media  was   also  an urge  for  supposed clarity: here the good side ( Ukraine,  the West), there   the   bad  side  (Russia). This narrative  not  only  allows quick     and easy  answers  to difficult  questions, but  also creates the impression of resolving the complexity  of  the conflict,   the world  . Yale professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld gained notoriety   in  a short period of   7 years by  maintaining  a  constantly  updated  list  of Western  companies that withdrew  from  Russia  after  the war began.     and  at the same time  denounced  those who  are still active  on the Russian  market.   Asked  about  the negative  consequences  for some  Western  companies  still    operating in Russia   , Sonnenfeld   replied that there was no  grey area  in the „Russia question“,    but  only  Black or  white. Lists that   classified persons  (including  legal ones) on  the basis  of a  moral/ideological  judgment  have existed since  Sulla’s  proscriptions  and hardly any    terror regime  is   without  them. The naming-and-shaming list  from  Yale, as much  as it  wants to achieve  „good“, is  very  appealing  in its  simplification  and clarity,   but misses the complexity   to  mirror. Such a     simplification, even infantilization,   of the conflict  ignores reality,   but allows  polarization  and thus serves    as a  basis  for sensational headlines.  . It is  characteristic  of the media society that  a  large part  of its  members no     longer  wants to   endure  complexity  and contradictions.   Clear  positioning,  clear   „announcements“,  clear   guidelines, a  clear  distinction  between white and black   are in demand. The detailed  examination   of the other side and its  arguments  seems  laborious  and  per   se is not suitable  for  the functioning  of the media society, because  it   is  time-consuming,  while  at the same time     more and  more  headlines  have to  be  produced.        

   For example,  the question of  why Russia invaded Ukraine was almost irrelevant just a few days after the invasion.    This question would be essential for conflict resolution.  Russia – or Putin – is evil. It  is also fitting that  it is  often not spoken of „Russia’s“ war, but of    Putin’s. The numerous articles  dealing with his mental health testify to an assumption that the conflict can be explained     by the insufficiency of the Russian president. would be. This may be less related to a  genuine concern for his health  than  to  the desire  to  give „evil“ a face. The personification of state actions is mainly done  to  further reduce complexity. 

  This  clear  partisanship  is  not  inconvenient for politicians, because  at the same time  as  it  and  the further  escalation of the conflict,   questions  about the responsibility    of the West  in this  war   disappear.   about   the rule of law and corruption in Ukraine, questions about       Ukraine’s   treatment of   its  pro-Russian  population  and diplomatic    misconduct by  Western  politicians, questions  about        Energy  policy mistakes  and why a   few  months  ago  African  refugees were   turned away  at the   exact same  European border   posts, while  now these  border posts  for Ukrainians   are  open.  These  self-critical  questions  no longer need      to  be  answered, because good and evil  are  defined  and the idea that the „good guys“ share  responsibility  for  the actions  of the “     bad guys“ “    is no  longer  posed  in   an almost religious  way. And      as much as    the increasingly  horrific  reports  about  the war in Ukraine   call for partisanship,   it must  be   remembered that  partisanship    is a  is and must remain a personal, individual  decision    and   must   only be  made  at  the state level when  Switzerland’s interests really  demand  it. Taking sides to give   in to media   pressure may be   opportune for individual  politicians,   but  realpolitik with  a  neutral  Switzerland as an  actor  takes place    outside  these  spheres.   Off. A closer  look  at certain  events , however,   raises  other, unpleasant  questions : What exactly  distinguishes  Russia’s  war of aggression  and the desired  regime change  from the actions . of the West  in  Iraq  or  Libya? How can    one   be   right  and the other  wrong when  8  is foreign    intervention   in both  cases?  Significantly,    in   Iraq  and Libya, the West  used the same  arguments as  Russia  does in Ukraine:  the prevention of   genocide, the protection of   certain  populations, the stability    of  the region. The results  are  known  and should  be  no different    in  the case of Ukraine. And  to   return to  sanctions: What exactly  distinguishes  the current  conflict  from others where    Switzerland  was not  prepared  to   impose sanctions?  Are  there really      objective reasons  or  is the   wave   that can be shaped  by the media  now   so large that  politicians  have to   duck  before  it ? And yes, there is  war in Europe, but  it already did  in the 90s in the   Balkans and in the 70s   in Cyprus.  But the supposed „uniqueness“ of this  conflict   allows   for   more violent  headlines  than the confrontation  with    the fact that   Europe  has   many  unresolved  trouble spots  ( e.g.   Ireland, Basque Country, etc.), its neighbours have   partly repressive regimes (e.g.   Belarus, Turkey)  and, above  all,   Russia,   have regularly  instigated  wars for which Europe and the West  had  only  vague  consequences. Also  the questions  of why the   import of gas  and oil from   countries  from the Middle  East should  be     problem-free  and why  business  with  China, which   persecutes  the Uighurs, continues   are fine, must  be  asked  at some point.  These  questions  cannot    be  answered with   moralistic    partisanship, but  only  with  reference  to realpolitik.      One may  find this offensive, but  to  deny   it is  a  glorification  of  the reality in which   the international  order  of states operates.              

And yet, this glorification of reality and  the insistence on  partisanship on  the basis of  morality creates a dangerous slipstream of  indignation over the supposedly unique „event“  of  the  Russian invasion. In this slipstream,  measures are being adopted that   would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago  : the increase in military budgets in many countries by several hundred billion euros. or dollars. When rescuing indebted countries in the eurozone  , it  felt like every euro was taken care of, now   Europe is arming as if spending were not a  problem  for future generations. It is still too early to say how the  war will end, but the losers – the suffering  Ukrainian people and the future taxpayers – and the winners  –   the arms industry   – are  already fixed. 

  A clear   partisanship  creates   the impression  of a  clear  state of affairs, but  the view  for nuances  is      lost. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown how,   in just  a few  months,   the population    has   separated  into vaccine advocates  and opponents of vaccination   , who hardly have a      common  communication denominator  with each other.    could find. However,   such a   policy,   such  media coverage, which   offers  little  room for nuance, paves the  way  for   radicalisation  and    the   positioning  of the    Politics  in this  war opens     Pandora’s   box to   another  evil that   already seems  to be   escaping    from it: attitude and a  policy based  on sentiment  and  attitude.   is  not  based  on law.  Supermarkets  withdraw Russian   products from   the  market, Russian   athletes  and sports clubs are   excluded  from international  competitions,  performances by    Russian  artists  are    cancelled ,  Russian     assets  are  frozen because  they belong to a   person with  a Russian  passport.    These  measures  are  only  possible if  collective   guilt is   assumed. Collective guilt,     however,   requires that one has   a  clear  attitude, that one not   only  blames  the one  party  to the    conflict   , but  also the    Individuals who   belong to this  party by  birth, chance  or  free  choice.  It is not  the actions  of a  person that serves  as an  indicator of his   conviction and condemnation, but  his characteristics, in casu  nationality.    9This necessarily contributes    to the   escalation of the conflict    and   it is not  far from this  attitude    to  hatred, at the latest  when the local  incited  population in   the     form of  higher  taxes  and energy prices  will  have to  bear the costs  of the escalation.    Moreover,   such  an  attitude makes   it   difficult to return  to          peaceful normality because,     unlike  newspaper articles,   emotions  cannot  simply be    overwritten.   Accepting collective guilt    and   making   decisions based on  it does  not do justice to  a  constitutional state. The ultimatum  of the city of Munich by  its  Lord Mayor  to  the Russian  conductor  of the Munich  Philharmonic  Gergiev to   distance itself  not  only  from the  conflict, but  also  from Putin, is     disturbing, because  it   presupposes  a  certain  individual  attitude    approved  by the  state in order to be able to practice a  profession, in order  to   be able to  practice art.  Politically,   this ultimatum  and  the subsequent  dismissal  of Gergiev  may  well  have  found  support,   but is  hardly  with  one  on  the right   and   not  the attitude.   based  on the rule of law. The Zurich  Opera House  initially   pointed out in an   exemplary manner   in accordance with   the rule of law that  it  had   no  information  about  political  positions from its  artists  due to a lack of   legal  basis.    can catch up.  A few  days  later, however,   it cancelled   performances by Anna Netrebko   – at least  amicably  with  the artist, but  under  heavy  media  pressure.    Such  pressure  to  justify individuals  is actually  only  known  from totalitarian  states.  Comparisons  with the   McCarthy era are   premature, but  the parallels  are  becoming increasingly  clear.   Today it is  the Russians, tomorrow   it can  affect anyone.              

The culture of outrage  as an  inherent  part of the media society  certainly promotes    a  politics based on attitudes. One can, perhaps  even must,   criticize Donald Trump’s  populism, but at   the same time  one must   be   aware that by  simplifying  politics  – based  on  him  ,   he     Acceptable  media  – which   provided the   blueprint  for the West’s current  policy of convictions . It   is not true,   of course, that  the West  should  not  defend  itself  and its interests.    However,   it  must   be remembered that this   has  been  badly  neglected  over the last  three  decades. The defense of   Western  interests  must  not  be carried out  by the duty  of individuals  to create a  supposedly  morally  superior – in  the worst  case even    state-propagated  –    This is the first  time that   we have had a debate on this subject.  The fact that  individuals  – including  state   –   have to   adopt moral concepts in order   to  circumvent reprisals is  a  breach of taboo. The greatest  merits  for Western   values  have always   been earned  by  admonishers  and critics. The demand to   take  a clear position   is    politically understandable,   but  wrong under the rule of law.  Politics  cannot  do  without  moral  convictions, without clear   ideas,   and the media  need  simple, clear  facts    for their  headlines. The problem and  the danger,   however,  are that  the principles of   the rule of law  are  neglected  or  even thrown  overboard.  Attitudes  must  not  and cannot  be   the yardstick by which  individuals    are  legally evaluated. Even opinions that differ  from the  mainstream   deserve  protection. Thoughts, as disturbing   as   they may be   in  individual cases, are and must  not  be   punishable or  have  other  repressive consequences.    Within  what    is legally  permissible,   the individual – in order  to     be   such at all  – must be able to    position himself  morally freely and without  fear of  state  consequences  and   to   To express one’s attitude  –   whatever    it    may be.  If  this  is not  possible,   the  threshold   to  totalitarianism has  been crossed.  Shockingly,     we  have now   reached   the point where there   are  serious  proposals to   overthrow one of the most important  pillars of   the  rule   of law: legal professional privilege  should  not   be applied to Persons who are on (sanctioned) lists   apply.  Putting certain  people  on 10 lists   (for   political  reasons, mind you)   and   then  denying them  legal protection must be   an  absolute taboo for a  constitutional state. It   is  no  different  with  the recently  drafted  proposal of   some  politicians that   blocked  assets  of „Putin-close“ oligarchs  should not  only  be frozen. , but  also      to  be  confiscated  and   used for a  specific  purpose, such as   the reconstruction  of Ukraine. As much as one may see the   good  intention   in this  proposal ,  it   is dangerous , as  it breaks  with the guarantee   of property  and allows  the   expropriation  of the state.  of persons  on the basis of   political  considerations.  If one breaks with   these principles of   the rule of law,   one also breaks  with  the rule  of law   as  such, which must  not     only  affect politics  and administration, but also     also  become  clear to   the media  and to each  individual.       Countering an  unquestionably  difficult  political  situation with  such  more than  questionable  means  under the rule of law will   not  solve the   (foreign)  political problems, but will  ultimately  lead to the     erosion of the Rule of law.                

Of course, and this is the realization that  is     leaking more and  more,    the media    are moving away  from Augstein’s „writing what is“ to     „writing  what should be“.  After the first  reports   of   a  possible  massacre  of Ukrainian  civilians  by   Russian  soldiers in the village of   Butscha  emerged at the   beginning   of April,   the FDFA reacted – probably  also  Cassis‘ mishap.   in  mind  – by    calling for an  independent  investigation and   criticizing  the violations    of international law. Switzerland at its best: an insistence  on rules, even  if  others  break  them. Blick’s reaction   was    to  describe  Cassis, the head  of the FDFA, as a  fabric softener because he   had not   taken sides   more   clearly  and he  did   not  show    sufficient  toughness against  Russia. . Cassis reacted  to this: He praised the fact that  Switzerland  was   not  only  on course in    implementing the   sanctions , but  was  one  of  the best in the   world.  Apart from the question    of how and with  what  sense and purpose the „best in the world“   should  be evaluated  in    the Russia sanctions,   it   reveals a  policy that  is driven    by the   media  „what should be“.  The German journalist Nikolaus Blome    directly accused  German   Chancellor  Olaf Scholz in an  article  of   not    wanting to    be  driven  by the media after  he   In Blome’s  view, he   had  acted  too  cautiously  in the  Ukraine war. The Chancellor, according to Blome,      is „not driven  by reason or  to the  right“  and     that is childish  and costs  time.  Not  only  that the     journalist  was   already  propagating for himself what was right  and reasonable –   at least that could   be   qualified  as an  opinion  – but the fact that   the fourth    estate   It                          is  problematic and – one   has to Say clearly    – dangerous. The separation of powers  also applies to  the media, even  if  this   is  increasingly forgotten by their  representatives    under  the activist  haze of „writing what should be“.              

In the same  vein    ,  the politicians and „experts“  who attest  to  Switzerland  doing   too little against   Russia and   against  the assets  of Russian  citizens, and who the    USA       and       openly call on the EU to put pressure  on Switzerland. They advocate   the de facto  suspension  of banking  and    legal secrecy  and direct    action  by  the US authorities against   Swiss lawyers if   there are indications that  they     break  with  US sanctions    on behalf of  their  Russian  clients. The     argument   repeatedly put forward    is that  Switzerland has   expressed   its „restraint“ through the „restraint“   (allegedly perceived  by  foreign countries,   but at least as expressed  in the media).   „good  reputation“.    To  define foreign  public  opinion  as an   indicator of   political  action is strange    in itself   and testifies  to an  inferiority complex, but  on this altar   To  want to   sacrifice the rule of law  is  – let me   be clear –  a  rupture that   will    result in the end   of Switzerland’s liberal, liberal  order. The   joint  article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine  Zeitung  at the end   of May by Michael Ambühl, Professor Emeritus  at ETH Zurich and former  State Secretary  of the Swiss Foreign Ministry, Nora Meier,  Managing Director   the Swiss School of Public Governance at ETH  Zurich, and Daniel Thürer,  Professor Emeritus at the University of Zurich and former  Chairman of the German  Society  of International Law    and former  member    of the   OSCE Arbitration and  The Court of Conciliation    gives      a deep insight into how  much  the   political will to shape seduces to      suspend elementary  legal principles.   In   their article  –   nota bene only published  in a  foreign  medium   –  the three  authors  propose       confiscating Russian assets of „sanctioned  Russian  oligarchs“ for the   purpose of rebuilding  Ukraine.   and strive  as “ inspiration“ Art. 72 SCC.  This  standard   provides for  the confiscation of assets  of criminal  organisations. In   respect of assets of a   person who   has participated  in     or    supported such an    organisation,   Article   72  of the Criminal Code provides that   the   organisation’s power of disposal is to be exercised  until  proof   of  the  The opposite  is suspected. Based on this  , according to the authors, „in   principle,   all assets could   be  confiscated, unless the persons could  prove that  they  were  not        involved in the war of aggression provoked by Putin.   are involved   in or  support  them“.  Ambühl, Meier  and Thürer  conceal   the  fact that  Art. 72 of the Criminal Code  does not   provide for a   general reversal of the burden of proof   – such a  reversal would   also  not    be  lawful  and neither  with  the  Swiss  law  still compatible  with  the ECHR.  Rather,    Article 72 of the Criminal Code  applies  only  to the assets of persons who,   by    judicial and  independent judgment,   have been granted membership  of a    criminal  Organization  has  been  demonstrated.  Ambühl,    Meier and Thürer , however,   ignore  this  complexity, as well  as  questions of international law,   and demand  from a  more undefined    group (sanctioned   Russian  Oligarchs) issued a public   political  statement  (in casu  against  Russia’s  actions) to  avoid confiscation  of assets: „An explicit  public  distancing  from the     Kremlin   would be  relieving.  Otherwise, following  such an    approach,   support  would   be  accepted.“ With  their  article,   the authors catapult  us back to times when     a   person’s mindset decided whether  they would  be     subject  to    state  repression, to times when        In times when   opinions  deviating  from state   doctrine were   directly  sanctioned, in times when   political  and moral  ideas overrode  the law, in times when     fundamental  principles of   the rule of law  such as  freedom of expression, guarantee of property, presumption of innocence, causality  between  action and sanction, principle of legality   ,  prohibition   of retroactivity  and prohibition of analogy  – in order to      to  name just  a few  –   could  be  undermined at any time  in  pursuit of   political  goals  or did not  even exist. A  political goal   , no matter  how noble, remains  a  political  goal  and must   bow to the law. A reversal in which  the political   goal  bends   the law opens the   door to  (political) arbitrariness . And whoever    wants to   make politics   in this way, makes  politics that focus  on the radicalization of the population, the superficiality  and simplification of complex  problems, the production    of    Prohibitions of thought, which   promotes  Nibelung loyalty  to  state morals and dependence  on  the media  and thus carries   the rule of law  to  the grave.   

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2018/1, S. 50ff. 

• The complexity of opening an account 
• Increasing compliance requirements make it difficult to open accounts at Swiss banking institutions in terms of time and material. A field report. 

How information (should) make the world a better place 

At that time 

I can still  remember my  first  account opening. The summer holidays had   started a few days ago     and I had, a few    days    after  my  16th birthday.    Birthday, just  started  my  first  summer job  in a  small  industrial company.  After  a  welcome  by  the supervisor,   I   was asked  to fill out various documents. One of the pages was titled „banking relationship   “  and    slightly   bashfully I    had to admit on   record  that  I   did not  have one.    With  a  smile  I was  advised    to  open one, because  salaries  would    not  be paid  in cash. Fearing  for my   future  wages,   I   ran  home right  after  work to  ask my  parents  for advice. My father  picked up   the   phone  and half an    hour  later  we  entered the branch  of a  bank in   the  village square. The store manager, a  nice elderly  gentleman, greeted  my  father  warmly  and  then   turned  to  me,   then invited us    both  into his office, which had  the charm   of the 60s.  He was still  breathing for years. The store manager     kindly asked  me   how old I was, where I went to  school, what my  favorite subjects  were  and if  I   had any hobbies.  I   answered  his  questions kindly, but did   not understand them  as  relevant for  the account opening, but  more  than  the    usual  questions that adults  ask  children,  if   their   real  interest  is their  parents  and a  certain  kindness  towards the children is part  of the  good  manners.   I was   then  told, since I   had  not  yet  reached the age of majority,  that my   father  would be  a co-beneficiary  of  the account   (which   made me  wonder, since it  was   my money that was supposed   to flow into the account ).   ) but  that  I   could otherwise    freely dispose of  it.  I was presented with   two  pages  that I   had to  sign, one of which  contained  the terms and conditions.  After  giving my  full  name    ,   I was asked   to  sign right away. I   could    leave the second  field with  the address blank,   you  would already have it   through  my  parents.  Finally, I     was  asked  if I     wanted a  bank card,   I would have to  make  another  signature  for  this  purpose.    After  twenty  minutes,   my  dad and    I   left  the bench and I felt like growing   up would  be   easy.        

Today 

Years later, with a  Ius degree and the bar exam in  between, I   was asked by a  client to assist him  in discussions with a bank.  Not far from  the parade ground, on a rainy afternoon, there are   seven of us, both of us  and five bank  representatives, sitting in one of  these elegant premises of the   bank    , which is more reminiscent of the 50s.  than  global banking, FATCA and AEOI.  Basically  , it  is about the establishment of a  banking relationship and the account opening for a stock corporation held by the customer alone. He himself  is a Colombian citizen,  but has been living in Switzerland for  over 20 years and  has been a  customer of the said bank ever since. 

 After initial niceties are exchanged and the café  is served,  the following  conversation begins,  which  is only incompletely reproduced here: 

  B:  Thank you  for  choosing us. 

K: Well, I’ve been a  customer of yours for a long time and I’m very satisfied. 

B:Yes, of course, in the area of private clients  

K: Uh, yes, exactly, that’s  with you, isn’t it?  

B: That’s  correct, but  we’re a different department here, Corporate Clients.   Nevertheless,  we are glad that you  have now  come to us with X AG.  We now have some documents here that  need to be filled in. 

The client advisor Corporate Clients hands me a stack of about 70 pages.  These are sorted into several substacks. 

B: You would now have  to  fill out these documents and  then send them to us.  Perhaps we could briefly look at  the documents together. 

K: That’s fine, my lawyer will take care of  it. 

B: That’s ok, thanks.  In conclusion,  however, we would like to ask  a few questions. 

K: What kind of questions? 

B:About you.  Questions of a general nature. 

 This  is where I dig deeper, because I  do not understand what questions should be relevant  in  addition to the  documents to be filled in. 

B: Oh, you know, the classic KYC. 

Even before  I  can answer that  I do not know what the classic KYC is and what other  KYC there  is,  the client takes the  floor. 

K: That’s ok,  please ask. 

B: You’re married, right? 

Q:And. 

B:How long? 

K: For 25 years. 

B: And your wife, who also lives  in Zurich? 

K: Yes, of course. But  listen,  you  have this information for a long time. 

B: No, not our department and we are obliged  to ask separately again. 

K:Ok, then please, continue . 

B:Where did you study? 

K:In Bogota, History and Politics. 

B:Any semesters abroad? 

K: No, that  wasn’t so common at the time. 

B: Where does your wealth come from? 

K: It’s my family’s money. 

B: You inherited it, right? 

Now  I cannot    hold back and object that apparently the Corporate Clients department  has  obtained information that is available to  the  Private Clients  department. 

B: Yes  , we know the customer, he  has been with us  for  a long time.  

I  refrain from asking   what the interrogation  is supposed to do  , also because I see that my client remains calm. 

B: So,  you inherited the fortune?  

K: Yes,  thirty years ago. 

B: Through her parents? 

Q:And. 

B:What did your parents do for a living? 

K: They had a factory, some companies. 

B:Ok. What was the name of the parents? 

K: Please? 

B:Your   parents‘ names. 

K: But they’ve been dead  for thirty years and have never been  to Switzerland. 

B: Well, ok, but we   need to know their names. 

K: Their names were W and Z. 

How  I would have liked to have mentioned any figures by García Márquez  instead of  W and Z  and looked to  see if the customer advisor would notice.   Father José Arcadio Buendía, mother Úrsula Iguarán. But here, too,  I  refrain from interfering. 

B: And they have a son? 

K: Yes, he’s  fifteen. 

At this point  I intervene and object  that it  would go a little too far. The 52 bank representatives take a quick look at  each other  and give in. 

B:Good, good. That’s not so important. Still living   in XY? 

K: Yes, since I’ve been in Switzerland. 

B: Well, finally, could you  send us  a CV? 

K: A what? 

I, too, ask what  is meant by „CV“.  It is about an  account opening, not about an application.  

B: Well, we didn’t find  you  on LinkedIn,  so  we need more information. 

I see the astonished face of my  client, but also driven  by my own curiosity,  I ask what  role  LinkedIn plays here. 

B: Well, when we   find our customers on LinkedIn, we  take the  profile there for the CV   , because  we still have to have  it  .  If the customers are not on LinkedIn,  they must submit  a resume. 

K: I’m  not   on  LinkedIn, not even on Facebook or anything. 

B: Yes,  we know that, hence the request for a CV. 

K: Um, yes. 

B: Do you  have any relations with the US? 

K: No. 

B:Are you or family members U.S. citizens? 

K: No. 

B: And your parents?  Were the U.S. citizens? 

K: They’re still  dead! And no, they  weren’t. 

B: Are you  planning  to become a US citizen? 

K: Not in this life, maybe in the  next.  

The bank employees laugh tensely, but the mood is loosened up a bit despite everything. I    can’t   help laughing either,  but I wonder what can  still be said with certainty today. 

B: Well, still to the documents.  We have  already drawn for you in pencil what you  should tick where. 

I object   that  it may  be that something else would have to be ticked. The bank employees look at each other confused. 

B:Then  please  call us immediately. But actually, this  should not be  necessary. 

The  recently   relaxed mood  is noticeably tensing again. The awkward silence is finally broken by my client, who states that  he now  has  to go on,  has another  appointment. 

B:Ok, ok. If  you have any questions,  we will contact you. 

  We say goodbye  and  we leave the  bank into the cool summer air. My client looks at  me confused, he is still a little overwhelmed by this interrogation.  After a few minutes,  he  lets off some steam and   complains    about what he has been   asked,  but relents on his own: „You know, the banks are not  to blame.   , they are just doing  their job,  these regulations are to blame, they  have taken over  and you are riddled with questions that  should not concern anyone.“ 

He hands me the account opening documents: „May I ask you to look at this? I’ll fill it  out if you give me the OK.“ 

I assure him to do so and just before   he gets into the car, he  shakes his head again, visibly annoyed: „Look, many of my business partners are starting  ,  or have started to  To avoid the Swiss  financial centre. They have nothing to hide,  but do not want to reveal things that fall within the realm of the private.  We  once left  Colombia because there  was no rule of law, too  many controls, too much  surveillance  ,  too much  arbitrariness. And now this. And      even worse: the state 53  does  not even bother to collect this information itself. In South America, the secret services have long collected this  information themselves,  but here the state obliges the private individuals, i.e.   the banks,  to collect this data.   . And I  still pay for it, because the costs are passed on to me.  It’s  crazy to  have to pay for your own surveillance.“ 

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2021/1, S. 72ff. 

• The GDPR as a new approach to data protection 
• The GDPR requires major and far-reaching changes for companies.  These changes go   beyond data protection and affect the structures of companies and the way  they operate.  

After the new EU Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force  on 25 May 2018  ,  the  first conclusions can  now  be  drawn about the importance of  this set of rules for (Swiss) companies two  years later.  Although an EU set of rules,  the GDPR has undoubtedly caused additional costs for many Swiss companies, from clarifying  individual issues to  revising data protection declarations.   However  , it   is already foreseeable after two years that the GDPR  will increasingly lead to a paradigm shift in corporate management and corporate organization,  and not only in  terms of  on data protection, but much more profoundly. 

Data protection in the context of compliance 

Today   , data protection still falls primarily into the area of compliance, namely  compliance understood as a  collective term for all organizational measures and internal processes in a company for   Prevention of legal violations and adequate  response to them. In this sense,  the focus of data protection  for companies is on the task of  maintaining the applicable data protection regulations and   avoiding possible legal violations. In order to achieve this,  various means  are available, such as  the collection of the legal basis, the appointment of  a company data protection officer,  the  enactment of  internal  Instructions, the collection of data files including conformity assessment,  the guarantee of data security and the training   of  employees. What all these measures have in common  is that they represent preventive mechanisms that  essentially seek to avoid violating data protection regulations.  Ideally, they create  a coherent internal set of rules that  reflects the existing legal standards – often even exceeds them  aggravating them – and thus for each individual   Business conduct and transaction of the  company concerned ensures that  they comply with the  law. 

One could now  be  led by the assumption that the GDPR will only make additional efforts and burden  the compliance departments of  the companies concerned  . That this  is already the  case and will continue to be the case  is self-explanatory, because any additional legal requirement requires technical know-how and resources in  order to  be  able  to implement it in the end. . The GDPR is  no exception. 

However, although the GDPR  enjoys a legal character,  it mixes  normative and regulatory elements. Normative elements, i.e. laws,   –  as  postulated in the present case  – classically provide a framework within which one acts in accordance with the law and outside which  one  no longer  does.   does.  Regulation,  on the other hand, goes further and requires certain behaviours and the implementation of concrete measures. The Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP)  – prior to  its current revision – must  be understood primarily as a normative element  which,  since its entry into force in July 1993, has basically   is a  legally binding framework.  

The GDPR, on the other hand, is  a child  of its time, in which the boundary between normative and regulatory elements is disappearing.   In other words,   it not only presents   the companies concerned  with  a framework within which they can move in  accordance with the law, but also explicitly provides  instructions for  certain types of behaviour and specific measures  for undertakings.   The GDPR  can therefore be understood as a regulatory law. It can therefore be  assumed  that the GDPR  will initiate the changes for data protection that the  establishment of  the  Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)  provided for financial institutions. 

Impact of data protection on corporate structures 

It goes  without saying  that general regulations – in addition to normative requirements – in the  financial market sector already  existed  before 2009, but after the start of  its activities,  FINMA quickly  developed into a comprehensive   «Regulation factory».  On the basis of its statutory mandate,  it  has issued and continues to issue supervisory notices, circulars, opinions and other publications, often without conclusive certainty  for the    Addressees, what normative significance these have, and  thus exercises the regulation.   The  increasingly concrete instructions for certain behaviours and  the  measures to be taken  slowly led  to the fact that strategic corporate decisions were not   only taken with regard to   the normative Increasingly  ,    and in some cases  exclusively,  they  are viewed through the lens of regulatory requirements. 

  It makes a considerable difference whether financial intermediaries are required  by the  legislature, when entering into business relationships,  to inform the contracting party on the basis of  an evidentiary document [to  ]  (Art. 3 para. 1 Anti-Money Laundering Act, AMLA) or whether they are required  by FINMA  to develop criteria that  indicate business relationships with increased risks  (Art. 13 para. 1   Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance-FINMA, AMLO-FINMA) as well as criteria  for identifying transactions with increased risks (Art. 14 para. 1 AMLO-FINMA) and  not only the criteria (Art. 14 para. 2   AMLO-FINMA  )    but  also the means of clarification (Art  . 16  AMLO-FINMA) and the timing of the clarification (Art. 17  AMLO-FINMA).  In other words,  it makes a  difference whether it is forbidden to  encourage money laundering or whether,  in  order to achieve this objective, financial intermediaries make a  meticulous  Catalogue of actions  to be carried out. 

In conjunction  with   the  increasingly severe penalties that  punish violations,  compliance  with regulatory requirements by companies‘ legal and compliance departments has become more and more important. Foreground in strategic fundamental decisions.    There have been questions about the countries in which investments are made  and  the  origin of funds that are accepted and forwarded, but the regulatory costs  and   the   The impending penalties, which are  now attached to  these questions, gives them a very relevant,  often even existential,  significance  for the business activities of financial intermediaries.  

 In this sense, regulation goes beyond the legal framework, because it does  not simply qualify individual actions of companies  as legally compliant or violating it,  but rather indirectly (  and  sometimes even indirectly) determines the structures and functioning of  those undertakings, in which it requires concrete measures to be implemented. A compliance department of  a bank from the year 2020 is likely to have caused incomprehension among many banks in  1990. 

  As a result, (extensive) regulation goes beyond behavioral control  and must therefore be understood as structural design. This means  that  now not only 74  the individual company actions, but also the structure of the company – beyond the   company law provisions  – as such    must comply with and  comply with regulatory  requirements  . The  companies concerned thus implement  regulatory requirements not only in the individual business activities or transactions, but also through a (sometimes fundamental) redesign of their structures. .  Regulation and compliance with it are    therefore not only “  a  binding component of a good corporate organization“, but to a  large extent  specify the corporate organization itself.  

A similar  development  is likely    to occur now after the entry into force  of the GDPR   . The manifold  obligations  that the GDPR   imposes  on  companies elevate  data protection  from the compliance department  to the highest    decision-making  bodies  of companies. The processing of personal data  and the requirements   of   the GDPR   are now linked  to  strategic  questions, such as    where a  company  invests  or  which lines   of  business   it pursues    Wants. As G. V. Müller already correctly  noted  in 2018   („Data protection   means  protection  of privacy“, NZZ of  25.  January  2018),   data protection    , similar  to compliance with  FINMA’s regulatory  requirements  or compliance with  environmental standards, will become an  essential  component  of risk management   by  Company. The processing  of personal data  will  therefore play   an  increasingly  central  role when  it   comes to business  decisions. The   data protection impact assessment provided for in Art. 35 GDPR   makes e.g .   It is clear that  future  issues  and the delegation of responsibility  must  be  taken into account  in business  decisions. The  data     protection by design  and   data  protection by   default required in Art. 25 GDPR in  turn require   measures that   massively      affect internal corporate structures and programs used. and  give  them  a  form  that complies with the provisions  of the GDPR. The appointment  of a  processor  is  not only shaped by   Art. 28 para. 3 GDPR, in which the relevant contract   contents  are  determined, not   only  characterize  the   contract design  affected by it,  but also  for   the most part. What an  initial and probably  rudimentary  action plan  for companies  can   look like is described   by the Conference of Independent  Data Protection Authorities  of  the Federal  Government and the Länder in Germany in its       Short Paper  No. 8  Action Plan “ GDPR“ for companies. It  proposes    measures  such as the adaptation of the affected  processes and structures, the determination of the legal basis  and  the purpose of data processing as   well as  the   documentation        of balancing of interests, which  Implementation of information obligations, data subject rights  and deletion concepts, adaptation of the data protection organization, appointment of a data   protection officer, reaction mechanisms to  data breaches   , organization       of    Reporting obligations, the adaptation of service relationships, the development of documentation,  the adaptation of   IT security  and the adaptation    of works agreements.       

75This list gives a first indication of the challenges  that  the  companies concerned will  face. The extent of the innovations cannot be  conclusively estimated at  present, but the scope  of the  GDPR, in its German version at least 78 pages long, can serve as a first indicator.   These are not only costly, but also indirectly interfere with the primary business interests of those affected.  If  one  also includes the reversal of the burden of proof, which is anchored in Art. 5 para. 2 GDPR  and  according to which  there is now an   accountability of  the person responsible, „according to which he ensures compliance with the  general principles (cf. Art. 5 para. 2 GDPR)   „, it becomes clear that an adaptation of corporate structures will be  unavoidable in order to  meet these requirements.  are sufficient. 

 As G. V. Müller   rightly points out,  the pharmaceutical and financial sectors, in which  this  change has  already been introduced,  are most likely to be prepared for this development.  The main reason for this   is the fact that the processing of personal data is  increasingly being incorporated into  the business processes of companies in these industries.    Pharmaceutical companies, as well as  banks, base a    large part  of their business on personal data and the possible handling of this is more a question of strategic orientation.   of these companies as the mere compliance  with data protection regulations.   However  , precisely because data,  and  especially personal data, is the „raw material of the future“,  more and more companies   from various industries are becoming more   and more affected by the GDPR and others.   Data protection legislation  may be affected. Dealing  with this will  shape companies in a similar way to dealing  with the original raw materials of market-based activity,  labour and capital.   If personal data is understood as valuable resources, compliance with its legal protection regulations is  essential and  has a direct effect on the handling and  ultimately  on the value of these resources.  The GDPR,  which is deeply  intervening in regulatory terms, specifies the first structures   that the companies concerned  must incorporate  in order to facilitate the entrepreneurial handling  of  to successfully manage these  resources.  The fact that the  GDPR  is  not territorially limited  and  is mandatory  for every participant in the European internal market also gives it a high degree of  economic significance. . 

The GDPR, that is undisputed, strengthens the protection of personal data.  At the same time,  however, it poses enormous challenges for the  companies affected.  The victims of the  adjustments in business processes and corporate structures caused by the   GDPR  are  then also the  SMEs, which find       it difficult to cope with the costs of these implementations. And that is what we are talking The advantages of a single  European market with free access to it are clouded for SMEs by the GDPR.  While the large corporations are  more likely to  cope with these adjustments and  rely on the help of lawyers and consulting firms,  SMEs  are faced with   the question of    economic  viability.  Not infrequently,  the European sales market is now likely to lose its attractiveness. The field, it must be said so clearly, is left to the big ones. The parallels to anti-money laundering legislation, which,  through its regulatory requirements,  have  created many markets for small and medium-sized banks based purely  on regulatory requirements  .  It is  obvious that this has  made economic  reasons unattractive.  Originally  noble intentions, namely transparency and data protection,  unintentionally alter  into a competitive advantage for market- and financially strong companies.  

Finally,  it  can be stated that data protection, as before also   the money laundering regulations  ,   as originally designed behavioral controls creep up to the  core of the 76 economy  and thus indirectly also   endanger a liberal and non-competitive economy  because they affect the multitude of  corporate law structures. The  differences in corporate law between a  corporation and  a partnership are becoming less important in view of the  regulatory requirements that apply equally to all  . Whether all this  is in the  sense of the inventor, of course, remains  to be seen.   No one doubts that the  fight against money laundering and  compliance  with data protection are  essential, but in the way  in which these issues are addressed,  the    individual side effects  cannot be ignored  . Consumers are not served if  their data  can be kept secure, but only by a few companies with market power. In  any case,  the disadvantages of the  then  shrinking liberal competition cannot be corrected by data protection legislation designed in  this way.