I.
The complainant claims a violation of his fundamental right to informational selfdetermination under Art. 2 sec. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 sec. 1 GG, the secrecy of
correspondence and telecommunications under Art. 10 sec. 1 GG, the inviolability of
the home under Art. 13 sec. 1 GG and, in conjunction with the above fundamental
rights, a violation of the guarantee of the protection of rights under Art. 19 sec. 4 GG.
[…]
80
81
II.
The complainant is concerned directly, individually, and presently by the challenged
provisions.
82
1. The complainant does not lack the necessary direct concern. It is true that a complainant is only directly affected by a legal provision if it interferes with the complainant’s rights without need for further implementation. If the implementation of a
law requires – as a legal requirement or in practice – an implementing measure that is
governed by the implementing agency, the complainant must generally first challenge
that measure and exhaust all legal remedies before he or she may raise a constitutional complaint (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, Entscheidungen des
Bundesverfassungsgerichts – BVerfGE 1, 97 <101 et seq.>; 109, 279 <306>; established case-law). However, one must presume a direct concern if the complainant
cannot seek recourse to the competent courts because he or she has no knowledge
of the respective implementing measure. […]
83
This is not altered by the fact that under § 10 sec. 2 ATDG, the complainant has the
option to request information on the storage of data, after which he can seek the protection of the courts against that storage. For he can pursue this course only if data
about him are indeed stored at a certain time; he cannot seek – as he does – protection against the possibility that such data are stored at any time without him being
able to influence this or to become aware of it. […]
84
2. The complainant is concerned individually and presently.
If only the implementation of the challenged law impairs the complainant in a concrete way, but the complainant is not usually informed about the implementing actions, the requirements for being concerned individually and presently are met if the
complainant shows that there is some probability that his or her fundamental rights
will be affected by the measures arising from the challenged law (cf. BVerfGE 122, 63
<81 and 82>; 125, 260 <305>; established case-law). The required degree of probability depends on the complainant’s options for showing that he or she is affected. For
instance, it is relevant whether the measure is aimed at a narrowly defined group of
persons, or whether the measure has a broad reach and may accidentally include
third parties. Statements by which complainants would have to incriminate themselves as criminal offenders, or as the potential instigators of a threat to public safety,
cannot be demanded as evidence for their being affected presently and individually
16/45
85
86