With the Act on the Reorganization of Telecommunications Surveillance and Other Covert Investigative Measures, and for the Implementation of Directive 2006/24/EC, not only the so-called data retention but also individual provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) were revised. The applicants in the present proceedings challenge the revisions of § 100a paras. 2 and 4 (telecommunications surveillance) and § 100f StPO (interception outside the home) introduced by Article 1 Nos. 7 and 11 of the Act on the Reorganization of Telecommunications Surveillance, as well as the
newly introduced provision of § 110 para. 3 StPO (inspection of electronic storage media) by Article 1 No. 12 of this Act. The applicants in proceedings 2 BvR 236/08 also challenge the newly inserted § 160a StPO (protection of professional secrecy holders entitled to refuse testimony) by Article 1 No. 13a of the Act on the Reorganization of Telecommunications Surveillance. In addition to their constitutional complaints, they have filed an urgent application seeking the interim suspension of the data retention of telecommunications traffic data for public security purposes, introduced by the Act on the Reorganization of Telecommunications Surveillance in §§ 111, 113a Telecommunications Act, and the amendments and new introduction of §§ 100a paras. 2 and 4, 100f, 110 para. 3, and 160a StPO.
After various constitutional complaints had been received by the Federal Constitutional Court, the competent committee has jurisdiction in these proceedings pursuant to section 14 (5) BVerfG. In parallel proceedings, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court has already issued a temporary injunction on the urgent application to suspend the regulations on the retention of telecommunications traffic data.
The Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court has dismissed the applications for interim injunctions in the present proceedings, insofar as the applicants challenge the new regulations in § 100f and § 110 para. 3 StPO as amended, because the constitutional complaints filed in the main proceedings are inadmissible from the outset due to the lapse of time and lack of grievance.
Insofar as the applicants challenge the regulations in § 100a paras. 2 and 4, as well as § 160a StPO as amended, the applications for interim injunctions have been rejected. The questions raised in these constitutional complaints require comprehensive examination in the main proceedings and can therefore be considered open. Consequently, the potential consequences if the interim injunction were not issued, but the constitutional complaints were later successful, must be weighed against the disadvantages that would arise if the requested interim injunction were issued, but the constitutional complaints were ultimately unsuccessful. In this regard, the Senate could not establish the necessary clear predominance of interests favoring the issuance of an interim injunction for criminal procedural intervention measures, even considering the undeniable impacts on citizens' communication behavior.
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat schon in früheren Entscheidungen die unabweisbaren Bedürfnisse einer wirksamen Strafverfolgung hervorgehoben, das öffentliche Interesse an einer möglichst vollständigen Wahrheitsermittlung im Strafverfahren betont und die wirksame Aufklärung gerade schwerer Straftaten als einen wesentlichen Auftrag eines rechtsstaatlichen Gemeinwesens bezeichnet. Blieben die hier angegriffenen Regelungen des § 100a Abs. 2 und Abs. 4 StPO n.F., die den Katalog der Anlasstaten und den Schutz des Kernbereichs privater Lebensgestaltung bei der Überwachung der Telekommunikation betreffen, in Kraft und hätten die Verfassungsbeschwerden im Hauptsacheverfahren Erfolg, würden zwar möglicherweise Telekommunikationsvorgänge der Antragsteller und anderer Grundrechtsträger überwacht und aufgezeichnet werden, die bei engerer Fassung der Vorschriften nicht erfasst würden. Allerdings könnten dann zur Aufklärung von Straftaten relevante Ermittlungsmaßnahmen nicht durchgeführt werden, wenn der Vollzug der angegriffenen Regelung des § 100a Abs. 2 StPO n.F. vorläufig ausgesetzt und der Vollzug des § 100a Abs. 4 StPO n.F. lediglich noch mit der Maßgabe gestattet würde, dass die Maßnahme nur angeordnet werden darf, soweit auf Grund tatsächlicher Anhaltspunkte anzunehmen ist, dass durch die Überwachung keinerlei Erkenntnisse aus dem Kernbereich privater Lebensgestaltung erfasst werden. Damit entfiele die Möglichkeit, bestimmte Daten und Informationen zur Aufklärung von Straftaten zu nutzen. Dies beträfe auch Straftaten, die der Gesetzgeber durch die Aufnahme in den Katalog des § 100a Abs. 2 StPO als so schwer eingestuft hat, dass sie nach seiner Einschätzung eine Überwachung der Telekommunikation rechtfertigen (vgl. Beschluss des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 11. März 2008 – 1 BvR 256/08 -, EuGRZ 2008, S. 257 <263>).
The same applies to the regulation concerning the protection of professional secrecy holders entitled to refuse testimony (§ 160a StPO). Here too, the balancing required in the interim injunction proceedings shows that the public interest in effective criminal prosecution outweighs the individual interest. If this norm were to remain in force and the constitutional complaint were successful in the main proceedings, investigative measures against persons entitled to refuse testimony under § 53 para. 1 sentence 1 nos. 3 to 3b or no. 5 StPO might be ordered based on proportionality considerations, or findings obtained from an investigative measure against another person, about whom one of the persons mentioned in § 160a para. 2 StPO as amended would be entitled to refuse testimony, might be used for evidentiary purposes after a proportionality review. This would limit the practical effects and thus also the function of the rights to refuse testimony laid down in § 53 para. 1 sentence 1 nos. 3 to 3b, no. 5 StPO. In this balancing, the public interest in the tasks performed by professional secrecy holders and the individual interest in maintaining the confidentiality of entrusted facts would have to be considered. If, however, by way of an interim injunction, the challenged provision were declared applicable only with the proviso that an absolute prohibition on the collection and use of evidence would exist for all persons entitled to refuse testimony mentioned in § 53 StPO, this could lead to numerous investigative measures not being allowed. This could result in the investigation of serious criminal offenses being impossible, as individual investigative measures might not be taken from the outset, or obtained findings might not be utilized.
Order of the Federal Constitutional Court of 15 October 2008 - 2 BvR 236/08, 2 BvR 237/08 -
Source: Press release of the Federal Constitutional Court No. 93/2008 of 07 november 2008
Goldberg Attorneys at Law, Wuppertal-Solingen 2008
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M.(Information Law)
m.ullrich@goldberg.de
