Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T07:48:04.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Data Screening of Muslim Sleepers Unconstitutional

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Gabriele Kett-Straub

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Shocking news for police and intelligence agencies in Germany: the search for inland sleepers following the terrorist attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon was unconstitutional. Preventive data screening is incompatible with the fundamental right of informational self-determination according to Article 2 (I) in connection with Article 1 (I) of the Grundgesetz (GG - Basic Law). Since the ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BverfG - Federal Constitutional Court) of 4 April, 2006 (1 BvR 518/02), such numerous acquisition of data is not permitted unless a concrete threat to important objects of legal protection is existent.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 11 , 01 November 2006 , pp. 967 - 975
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 A comprehensive outline about the controversial estimation of the current measures of data screening by the courts is given in: Winfried Bausback, Rasterfahndung als Mittel der vorbeugenden Verbrechensbekämpfung – Notwendigkeit einer Vereinheitlichung der landesrechtlichen Regelung angesichts des internationalen Terrorismus?, 133 Bayrische Verwaltungsblätter (BayVBl) 713, 714 (2002). See also Wilhelm Achelpöhler and Holger Niehaus, Data Screening as a Means of Preventing Islamist Terrorist Attacks on Germany, 5 German Law Journal 495, 504 (2004), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol05No05/PDF_Vol_05_No_05_495–513_special_issue_Achelpoehler_Niehaus.pdf.Google Scholar

2 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1939, 1947, 147 (2006). As the adjudication in the NJW is partly shortened, quotes are occasionally taken from the Federal Constitutional Court's homepage, where complete adjudications are published.Google Scholar

3 Id. at 1947, 184. See also Bausback, Winfried, Fesseln für die wehrhafte Demokratie?, 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1922, 1924 (2006).Google Scholar

4 See Hilger, Hans, Neues Strafverfahrensrecht durch das OrgKG, 12 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 457, 460 (1992). See also Klever, Stefan, Die Rasterfahndung nach § 98 a StPO (2003); Siebrecht, MichAel, Rasterfahndung (1997); and Achelpöhler & Niehaus, supra note 1, at 495–496.Google Scholar

5 Beulke, Werner, Strafprozessrecht, para. 262 (8th ed. 2005).Google Scholar

6 The aim of the abduction was to extort the release of founder members of the RAF detained in Germany. Authorities did not concede to the pressure; Schleyer was murdered. See Aust, Stefan, Der Baader-Meinhof-Komplex (1983); Peters, Butz, RAF (1994); Peters, Butz, Tödlicher Irrtum (2004); Willi Winkler, Die Geschichte der RAF (2005).Google Scholar

7 Siebrecht, , supra note 4, at 22.Google Scholar

8 See Herold, Horst, “Rasterfahndung” – eine computergeschützte Fahndungsform der Polizei, 84 Recht und Politik (RuP) 91 (1985).Google Scholar

9 This method is called “negative data screening.” as the intersection is brought to a manageable amount by erasing negative criteria of single groups of people. On the contrary, “positive data screening” implies the search for circumstances which apply to the perpetrator. See Siebrecht, supra note 4, at 22.Google Scholar

10 At that time, the data screening measures were based on the following general regulations: Strafprozeßordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure] §161, 163.Google Scholar

11 Conducting a dragnet investigation as a measure of inquiry assumes that at least a primary suspicion concerning a committed offense is known, and which must be of great seriousness also. Strafprozeßordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure] §98 a (catalog of offenses).Google Scholar

12 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutioal Court), 1 BvR 518/02, para. 4, (April 4, 2006) http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060404_1bvr051802.html.Google Scholar

13 Bausback, , supra note 1 (good review of the different police laws).Google Scholar

14 See Koch, Martin, Datenerhebung und –verarbeitung in den Polizeigesetzen der Länder 187 (1999).Google Scholar

15 Bausback, , supra note 1, at 715 (showing the connection of the different police laws in detail and the sources of all laws).Google Scholar

16 See BGHSt 49, 112 (116) (For possible assault plans in Germany); Bundesgerichtshof, (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2322, 2324 (2006). See Safferling, Christoph J.M., Terror and Law – Is the German Legal System able to deal with Terrorism?, 5 German Law Journal 515 (2004), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol05No05/PDF_Vol_05_No_05_515–524_special_issue_Safferling.pdf; Blaauw-Wolf, Loammi, The Hamburg Terror Trials – American Political Poker and German Legal Procedure: An Unlikely Combination to Fight International Terrorism, 5 German Law Journal 791 (2004), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol05No07/PDF_Vol_05_No_07_791–828_Public_Wolf.pdf.Google Scholar

17 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1939 (2006), (for criteria in detail) and Amtsgericht Wiesbaden (AG – Regional Court), Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 752 (2001).Google Scholar

18 Lisken demured this cooperation. See Lisken, Hans F., Zur polizeilichen Rasterfahndung, 21 Neue Zeitschrift Fuer Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 513, 514 (2002). To avoid such problems concerning competence, Bundeskriminalamtgesetz [BKAG] [Federal Criminal Police Office Law] § 7 was temporarily changed accordingly.Google Scholar

19 Only 5.2 million pieces of information came from North Rhine-Westphalia. See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutioal Court), 1 BvR 518/02, para. 28, (April 4, 2006) http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060404_1bvr051802.html.Google Scholar

20 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1939, (2006).Google Scholar

21 Id. at 1942. See also Achelpöhler & Niehaus, supra note 1, at 496–98 (further discussion of the background as regards constitutional law and basic rights).Google Scholar

22 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1939, 1944 (2006); BVerfGE 100, 313 (376); BVerfGE 107, 299 (320); BVerfGE 109, 279 (353); BVerfGE 113, 29 (53); BVerfGE 113, 348 (383).Google Scholar

23 BVerfGE 107, 299 (321); BVerfG 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 976, 981 (2006).Google Scholar

24 See BVerfG 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1939, 1943 (2006).Google Scholar

25 Id. at 1944.Google Scholar

26 Knemeyer, Franz-Ludwig, Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht, para. 87 (10th ed. 2004).Google Scholar

27 Knemeyer, Polizei- und Ordnungssrecht para 87 (10th ed. 2004)Google Scholar

28 Given that special courts (Fachgerichte) misjudged the importance and consequences of fundamental rights interpreting simple right, the case is no longer reversed to the Federal Constitutional Court for reexamination; see BVerfGE 7, 198; BVerfGE 101, 361 (388).Google Scholar

29 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1939, 1947 (2006).Google Scholar

30 Id.Google Scholar

31 Id.Google Scholar

32 The traditional term of a present threat was abided by: Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt (OLG – Higher Regional Court), 21 Neue Zeitschrift Fuer Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 626 (2002); Landesgericht Wiesbaden (LG – Regional Court), 26 Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 240, 241 (2002); Landesgericht Berlin (LG – Regional Court), 26 Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 175, 176 (2002). However, the requirements on probability of damage were lowered by: Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (OLG – Higher Regional Court), 26 Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 241 (2002); Kammergericht Berlin (KG – Regional Court), 5 Multimedia und Recht (MMR) 616, 617 (2002); Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz (OVG – Higher Regional Administrative Court), 21 Neue Zeitschrift Fuer Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 1528 (2002); Verwaltungsgerichtshof Mainz (VG – Administrative Court), 21 Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 303, 305 (2002); Amtsgericht Wiesbaden (AG – District Court), 25 Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 752, 753 (2001); Amtsgericht Tiergarten (AG – District Court), 25 Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 691, 692 (2001). The different requirements on the notion of damage are clearly laid out by Matthias Jahn, Das Strafrecht des Staatsnotstandes 87 (2004). See also Kutscha, Martin, Rechtsschutzdefizite bei Grundrechtseingriffen von Sicherheitsbehörden, 22 Neue Zeitschrift Fuer Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 1296, 1299 (2003).Google Scholar

33 See Lepsius, Oliver, Liberty, Security and Terrorism: The Legal Position in Germany, 5 German Law Journal 435 (2004), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol05No05/PDF_Vol_05_No_05_435-460_special_issue_Lepsius.pdf (concerning other counter-terrorist measures according to German law).Google Scholar

34 See BVerfGE 30, 292 (316); BVerfGE 33, 171 (187); BVerfGE 67, 157 (173).Google Scholar

35 See Hassemer, Winfried, Sicherheit durch Strafrecht – Eröffnungsvortrag Strafverteidigertag 24.3.2006, 26 Der Strafverteidiger (StV) 321, 332 (2006) (discussing development of the criminal law regarding danger defense).Google Scholar

36 Bausback, , supra note 1, at 1922.Google Scholar