The conditions under which such a use is permitted are, however, sufficiently narrowly defined to justify the interference. The data may be accessed and used only to
protect especially significant legally protected interests – which means, first of all, to
protect life, limb, health or freedom of human beings. […] Insofar as the provision additionally includes the protection of property of substantial value, the legislature
makes clear that this does not pertain to the protection of ownership or property per
se, but goods “the preservation of which is in the public interest” (§ 5 sec. 2 sentence
1 ATDG). This means, in the context of protection from terrorism, such property as
significant infrastructure or other facilities of direct importance for the community. The
provision also includes high thresholds for interference. The protected interests must
be exposed to a present threat founded not just on factual indications, but on specific
evidence. Here the data may be accessed and used only when this is indispensable
and the requested data cannot be transferred in due time. Moreover, access to the
data is procedurally safeguarded. […]
203
5. The principle of proportionality also sets requirements for transparency, protection of individual rights, and supervisory oversight. Due to the purpose and functioning of the database, the Counter-Terrorism Database Act ensures transparency of the
exchange of information only to a limited extent. Thus, only limited possibilities of legal protection are open to the persons affected; the supervision of its application is
carried out principally through oversight by the Data Privacy Commissioners. This is
compatible with the Constitution if the conditions set out in constitutional law are adhered to when it comes to effectively organising the supervision.
204
a) For the storage and use of personal data in performing official tasks, the legislature must also comply with proportionality-related requirements for transparency, legal protection, and supervisory oversight (cf. BVerfGE 125, 260 <325 et seq.>).
205
[…]
206-207
b) The Counter-Terrorism Database Act contains few provisions for the establishment of transparency and for ensuring the protection of individual rights. In essence,
it is limited to recognising rights to disclosure, which are of limited effectiveness both
procedurally and in terms of content. In view of the function and manner of operation
of this database, however, this is not objectionable.
208
aa) As a primary instrument for ensuring transparency, the Counter-Terrorism Database Act provides rights to information as provided in the Federal Data Privacy Act
(§ 10 sec. 2 ATDG). These rights, of course, are subject to limitations, and to some
extent may be exercised only with substantial procedural effort. However, in view of
the function of the Counter-Terrorism Database Act, they suffice to meet the constitutional requirements.
209
[…]
210-212
bb) Otherwise, the Counter-Terrorism Database Act includes neither a principle for
openness of data use, nor a reservation of certain matters for the jurisdiction of the
41/45
213