The police need effective resources in the fight against terror and organized crime. But how far can she go? Karlsruhe sets guidelines and sets a deadline.
The Federal Constitutional Court restricts the powers of the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) when collecting and storing data. The highest German court ruled that individual parts of the BKA law, which was reformed in 2017, were unconstitutional. It attaches strict conditions to the secret monitoring of suspects’ contacts and requires precise regulations when storing suspects’ data.
The First Senate in Karlsruhe decided that the previous regulations would partially violate the basic right of those affected to informational self-determination. The legislature must therefore make improvements by July 31, 2025 at the latest. A constitutional complaint by the Society for Civil Rights (GFF) was partially successful.
High hurdles for secret spying
Among other things, the court criticized the secret surveillance of suspects’ contacts. Such steps are a particularly serious intervention, said court president Stephan Harbarth. If such measures are only directed against contact persons, there must be a “specific, individual proximity of those affected to the danger to be clarified”. The corresponding regulation in the BKA law does not meet these requirements.
Judges demand clear regulations
The court also does not consider the point at which a suspect’s data can be stored to be sufficiently regulated. There is no sufficient storage threshold here. Harbarth said that being a defendant alone does not allow a reliable conclusion to be drawn about the sufficient probability of a relevant connection to future crimes. There is also a need for legal regulation regarding an appropriate storage period.
Not everyone is allowed to store data
The court emphasized: Forecasts of expected crimes must be based on sufficient factual evidence. “The type, severity and manner in which the previous offense was committed, as well as the personality of the person concerned and their previous criminal record, can be considered as suitable prognostic criteria.”
It is also important whether the person has repeatedly committed a crime and to what extent. You could also target crimes such as terrorism, organized crime, human trafficking, weapons and explosives crime, economic and environmental crime or politically motivated crime.
“From now on, every time the police authorities want to add an accused person to the network database, they have to check whether this person is really dangerous in the future,” said GFF lawyer Bijan Moini.
Plaintiffs celebrate “success for civil liberties”
The Society for Civil Rights (GFF), which initiated the proceedings, celebrated the verdict as a “success for civil liberties.” The decision strengthens the right to determine one’s own data and is also a request to federal and state legislators to formulate new surveillance powers in a sufficiently specific and precise manner.
The complainants included lawyers, a political activist and two football fans who ended up in police databases. “It has been determined that there must be a large threshold for data to be stored and therefore not every person can simply end up in the database,” complainant Stephanie Dilba said happily.
Journalists are also breathing a sigh of relief
The German Association of Journalists also spoke of a victory for freedom of the press. Journalists who conducted research in criminal environments would particularly benefit from the judge’s ruling. “The current practice is based on the motto “hung along, caught up”. Karlsruhe has clearly put up the stop sign,” said DJV federal chairman Mika Beuster.
Fan aid calls for quick action
The umbrella organization of fan aid organizations is now calling for a reform of the “Violent Sport Offenders” file. The federal government must act and keep its promise from the coalition agreement, explained Linda Röttig, board member of the fan aid umbrella organization. The “Sports Violent Perpetrators” file records people who have been noticed for acts of violence or criminal offenses, particularly during football games, but also other sporting events.
BKA: Some measures have already been implemented
BKA Vice President Martina Link said they would examine the court’s information. She expressed confidence that the implementation would be successful within the given deadline. Much of what the court has now specified has already been fulfilled.
Not the first constitutional review
The Federal Constitutional Court had already ruled on the extensive powers of the security authorities in 2016 – and declared some of them unconstitutional. The BKA law therefore had to be improved. The new version has been in force since May 2018.
GFF lawyer Moini appeals to be more careful with new legislative proposals: “The security package is another law in the Bundestag that provides for far-reaching tightening of security law – once again far beyond the limits of the Basic Law.”
The Green Party members of the Bundestag Irene Mihalic and Konstantin von Notz criticized: “In recent years there has hardly been a law presented by the CDU, CSU and SPD in the interior and security areas that fully complied with constitutional requirements and that did not have to be subsequently corrected.” This approach by the grand coalition of repeatedly disregarding fundamental rights and deliberately pricing the highest courts into their own legislation as a corrective measure is more than questionable in terms of the rule of law.
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
