provision.
3. § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG must in addition be interpreted in conformity with the Basic Law to the effect that it cannot be seen to contain a legal basis for the attribution of
dynamic IP addresses.
172
Recourse to § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG to identify dynamic IP addresses is out of the
question for the mere reason that this is to be defined as an encroachment on Article
10.1 of the Basic Law (see above C. I. 1. a) cc). Such encroachments are subject to
the citation requirement of Article 19.1 sentence 2 GG, which requires the legislature
to name the fundamental right upon which an encroachment is made and to state the
number of the Article in which it is contained. This is lacking in the present case.
173
Apart from this, however, an identification of dynamic IP addresses on the basis of
§ 113.1 sentence 1 TKG is also out of the question because the provision does not
define such an authorisation with sufficiently clear provisions. The identification of dynamic IP addresses makes it possible to a broad extent for communication events in
the internet to be de-anonymised. It is true that this has a certain similarity to the identification of a telephone number. However, in its very scope, but above all in the content of the contacts on which it can supply information, it has a substantially greater
personal relevance and cannot be regarded as equivalent to identifying a telephone
number (see BVerfGE 125, 260 <341 ff.>). In this connection, a sufficiently clear decision of the legislature is necessary as to whether and subject to what requirements
such an identification is to be permitted. However, such a decision cannot be inferred
with sufficient clarity from § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG. The provision does not expressly
deal with this question. Nor can a sufficiently clear statement be inferred from § 113.1
sentence 1 TKG by interpretation. § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG names only § 95 and
§ 111 TKG as the subject of the information duty, but it does not show that the
telecommunications enterprises, when they prepare such information, might also be
entitled and obliged to evaluate the traffic data under § 96 TKG; at all events, the final
formulation of the purposes of the traffic data in § 96 TKG does not support this interpretation. Accordingly, the question has also long been controversial in case-law and
literature too (see above A. I. 3.). § 113.1 TKG therefore does not contain a sufficiently clearly defined authorisation to identify dynamic IP addresses in addition.
174
4. On the basis of the above stipulations, § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG is compatible with
the Basic Law. In particular, it satisfies the requirements of the principle of proportionality. § 113.1 TKG is the basis for an information procedure which makes it possible
to attribute telecommunications numbers to assist the security authorities’ performance of their duties. For this, the provision is not merely suitable and necessary, but
also structured with restraint in a constitutionally acceptable manner.
175
a) However, § 113.1 sentence 1 TKG opens the manual information procedure very
wide. It permits information for the purpose of warding off dangers, prosecuting criminal offences or regulatory offences and performing intelligence duties. In this connection, the provision is also given no specific thresholds of encroachment which define
176
39/45