However, § 112 TKG does not in fact restrict information to retrievals which are legitimised by specific legal bases relating to the automated information procedure, but also accepts requests which are based on simple powers of data collection. As a result,
there is no requirement on the non-constitutional level for the entitled authorities to be
expressly specified over and above § 112.2 TKG and for further conditions for data
retrieval which are to be observed. But this is constitutionally unobjectionable. Since
the subject here is the transmission of data by an authority and the substantive conditions for this, including those with regard to the persons whose data are involved, are
laid down definitively and with sufficient clarity by § 112 TKG, then, taking account of
the limited weight of encroachment of the provision, this is compatible with the principle of proportionality and corresponds to the structure of the provisions on the automated retrieval of vehicle and vehicle owner data from the vehicle register (§§ 35 ff.
StVG) and the provision on data transmission in the law relating to the registration of
residents (§ 18 MRRG). Admittedly, this does not change the responsibility of the legislature – and in this connection, where applicable, of the Länder – for the constitutional formulation of the data collection provisions, which are not themselves the subject of the present proceedings. In addition, this does not relieve the public authorities
responsible from the duty to apply these provisions in such a way that specific account is taken of the requirements of § 112.1 and 112.2 TKG and in particular of the
requirement that collection must be necessary even in the individual case, and of the
further requirements of the principle of proportionality.
163
IV.
§ 113.1 sentence 1 TKG is constitutionally unobjectionable. However, the provision
must be interpreted in conformity with the Basic Law. Both for reasons of the law relating to competence and also for constitutional reasons, § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG
must be interpreted in such a way that it in itself alone does not create duties of information of the telecommunications enterprises. Instead, it requires separate nonconstitutional enabling provisions – where applicable, in Land law – for the definitive
justification of a duty of information; this legislation must in itself contain clear definitions creating a duty of the telecommunications service providers towards the authorities entitled to retrieve in each case. In addition, § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG may not be
interpreted to the effect that it permits an attribution of dynamic IP addresses.
164
1. § 113.1 TKG is covered by the legislative conference of the federal legislature under Article 73.1 no. 7 of the Basic Law, provided it is interpreted in conformity with the
Basic Law.
165
The competence of the federal legislature for data protection provisions follows from
Article 73.1 no. 7 of the Basic Law by virtue of a factual connection; this competence
also includes, as stated, the creation of provisions which provide for the potential use
for the performance of government duties of the data stored by the telecommunications enterprises. Under this competence, the federal legislature may authorise and –
corresponding to a duty of information contained in non-constitutional law – also
166
36/45