would be exempt from adherence to constitutional requirements, but to fight them as
criminal acts with means that are within the rule of law. This means, on the other
hand, that within the constitutional examination of proportionality, the fight against terrorism must be accorded considerable weight (cf. BVerfGE 115, 320 <357 and 358>).
c) In view of the conflicting interests, an overall assessment shows no constitutional
objections against the fundamental design of the counter-terrorism database as an
instrument for initiating the receipt of information and as a source of information for
initiating action when assessing threats in serious emergencies. However, the provisions for the database only meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality in
the narrow sense if these norms are unambiguous and sufficiently narrow in defining
which data are to be recorded and how these data may be used, and are in fact sufficiently limited, and if qualified requirements for supervision both exist and are adhered to (BVerfGE 125, 260 <325>).
[…]
134
135-137
IV.
On the basis of these principles, the challenged provisions do not meet the requirements for a structure of the counter-terrorism database that is sufficiently specific and
complies with the prohibition of disproportionate measures in a number of ways. They
violate the right to informational self-determination.
138
1. The provision under § 1 sec. 2 ATDG for involving further law enforcement agencies in the counter-terrorism database is incompatible with the requirement of specificity.
139
a) The principle of specificity aims to ensure that the law provides the government
and administration with standards that guide and limit their actions, and that the
courts can perform effective legal supervision. Specificity and unambiguity of the law
also enable the citizens concerned to adjust to potential burdensome measures (cf.
BVerfGE 110, 33 <52 et seq.>; 113, 348 <375 et seq.>; 120, 378 <407 and 408>). If
the legislature itself specifies the cause, purpose, and scope of such measures, it
may in some cases delegate their more detailed specification to the executive under
Art. 80 sec. 1 GG, which must then specify them in regulations. […] The principle of
specificity is therefore closely related to the constitutional reservations under which
interferences with fundamental rights may be restricted only by legislation and, if applicable, on the basis of a law. […] The requirements for the specificity of legal provisions depend on the intensity of the interference with fundamental rights caused by
the provision or arising on the basis of the provision.
140
According to these standards, the authorities participating in the counter-terrorism
database must be defined either directly by legislation, or by a regulation based on
legislation. The decision as to which authorities must submit their data to the database, and which ones may consult the data, significantly defines the scope and content of the database as well as the scope of the further use of the data. This is an es-
141
28/45