ment that the use of the information collected must be limited to specific purposes
(see BVerfGE 118, 168 <187>; 120, 378 <408>). The occasion, purpose and extent
of the given encroachment must here be defined by the legislature in a manner that
relates to a specific area and is precise and consists of well-defined provisions (see
BVerfGE 100, 313 <359-360, 372>; 113, 348 <375>; 125, 260 <328>; established
case-law). In the case of forms of information exchange which are graduated or consist of several encroachments, the requirement of clearly drafted provisions applies
to each stage.
b) § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG satisfies these requirements if it is merely understood as
a release provision which lays down in what cases the telecommunications enterprises are entitled to transmit the data in question - and also obliged, where a demand is
made which is independently laid down in non-constitutional law and is effective. Admittedly, the provision defines the potential purposes of such a transmission very
broadly, but with sufficient precision. As a provision which initially only lays down the
potential purposes of the data, it satisfies the constitutional requirements of definiteness if the duties whose performance the supply of information is to legitimise are only described in abstract terms and independently of specifically entitled authorities.
170
c) In contrast, § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG cannot be so understood that it itself creates
all the requirements for data retrieval with the result that all authorities solely on the
basis of their simple entitlement to collect data are entitled to information under
§ 113.1 TKG. Admittedly, the legislature is in principle at liberty to deal with the entitlements of transmission and retrieval in the same provision. However, the federal
legislature did not make such a provision in § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG. It does not even
have the competence to legislate on subject matter in relation to which legislation in
non-constitutional law is reserved to the Länder (see above C. IV. 1.). But even for
subject-matter in relation to which the federal legislature has the competence to legislate in non-constitutional law, § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG does not provide with sufficient precision that the provision is to be understood as a retrieval provision in this
connection. Instead, the federal legislature based the provision of § 113 TKG solely
on its competence for telecommunications law (BTDrucks 15/2316, p. 55), which
does not support the creation of such a retrieval provision, as set out above. In addition, the group of authorities entitled to retrieve, and thus the range of the information
duties, is restricted only in relation to the authorities’ duties, and thus not restricted
with sufficient precision. Instead, the creation of information duties of private persons
requires clear provisions as to the authorities to which the providers are specifically to
be obliged to transmit data. Only this also justifies to the persons whose data are involved the encroachment upon the right to informational self-determination. But such
a provision is made by neither § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG itself nor the provisions –
such as § 8. 1 of the Federal Act on the Protection of the Constitution (see Droste,
Handbuch des Verfassungsschutzrechts, 2007, pp. 230-231) or § 21.1 of the Federal
Police Act (Bundespolizeigesetz – BPolG) – which merely contain an entitlement to
collect data without an express information duty towards third parties make such a
171
38/45