relevant information concerning the results of criminal investigations by their criminal
prosecution authorities about terrorist offences. The Counter-Terrorism Database Act
and the streamlining of cooperation among security agencies that it aims for therefore
also has connections with Union law, and if further results are obtained via the transfer of information initiated by the Counter-Terrorism Database Act, the Act indirectly
also affects the scope of reporting obligations under Union law. There are also points
of connection with Union law regarding the obligations to enact restrictive measures
against certain persons and entities in order to combat terrorism under Council Regulation (EC) no. 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 (OJ L 344 of 28 December 2001,
pp. 70 et seq.). In other situations as well can and, where applicable, must the results
of the cooperation streamlined by the counter-terrorism database become part of the
numerous legal relationships governed by Union law that are part of judicial cooperation.
Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt and requires no further clarification – including under the standards of the acte claire case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ,
judgment of 6 October 1982, Case C-283/81, C.I.L.F.I.T., ECR 1982, p. 3415 paras.
16 et seq.) – that the Counter-Terrorism Database Act and the activities carried out by
the public security agencies and intelligence services on that basis are no implementation of Union law within the meaning of Art. 51 sec. 1 sentence 1 EUCFR. With regard to the Data Privacy Directive, this already follows from Art. 3 sec. 2 of Directive
95/46/EC, which makes an express exception for data processing concerning public
security, state security, and the activities of the state in areas of criminal law. The establishment and organisation of the counter-terrorism database are also not otherwise governed by Union law. In particular, there is no provision of Union law that
obliges the Federal Republic of Germany to establish such a database, impedes it
from doing so, or prescribes anything about the content of such a database. Rather,
the Counter-Terrorism Database Act pursues nationally defined objectives that can
only indirectly affect the functioning of legal relationships governed by Union law; this
is insufficient for a review according to the fundamental rights under Union law (cf.
ECJ, judgment of 18 December 1997, C-309/96, Annibaldi, ECR 1997, p. I-7493
para. 22). Therefore any applicability of fundamental rights under Union law is excluded from the outset. It follows directly from the wording of Art. 51 sec. 2 EUCFR and
from Art. 6 sec. 1 of the Treaty on European Union that the Charter does not extend
the field of application of Union law beyond the competences of the Union, and that it
neither establishes new powers or tasks for the Union, nor modifies the powers and
tasks defined in the Treaties (cf. also ECJ, judgment of 15 November 2011, C-256/
11, Dereci et al., para. 71; ECJ, judgment of 8 November 2012, C-40/11, Iida, para.
78; ECJ, judgment of 27 November 2012, C-370/12, Pringle, paras. 179 and 180).
90
Accordingly, for the questions that were raised, and which only concern German
fundamental rights, the European Court of Justice is not the lawful judge according to
Art. 101 sec. 1 GG. The ECJ’s decision in the case Åkerberg Fransson (ECJ, judgment of 26 February 2013, C-617/10) does not change this conclusion. As part of a
91
18/45