2
WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised
as follows.
3. The case concerns several provisions of the Law of 13 August 1968
on restrictions on the secrecy of mail, post and telecommunications (Gesetz
zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses), also
called “the G 10 Act”, as modified by the Fight Against Crime Act of
28 October 1994 (Verbrechensbekämpfungsgesetz).
4. It notably concerns the extension of the powers of the Federal
Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) with regard to the recording
of telecommunications in the course of so-called strategic monitoring, as
well as the use (Verwertung) of personal data obtained thereby and their
transmission to other authorities. Strategic monitoring is aimed at collecting
information by intercepting telecommunications in order to identify and
avert serious dangers facing the Federal Republic of Germany, such as an
armed attack on its territory or the commission of international terrorist
attacks and certain other serious offences (see “Relevant domestic law and
practice” below, paragraphs 18 et seq.). In contrast, so-called individual
monitoring, that is, the interception of telecommunications of specific
persons, serves to avert or investigate certain grave offences which the
persons monitored are suspected of planning or having committed.
5. The first applicant is a freelance journalist who works for various
German and foreign newspapers, radio and television stations on a regular
basis. In particular, she investigates matters that are subject to the
surveillance of the Federal Intelligence Service, notably armaments,
preparations for war, drug and arms trafficking and money laundering. In
order to carry out her investigations, she regularly travels to different
countries in Europe and South and Central America, where she also meets
the persons she wants to interview.
6. The second applicant, an employee of Montevideo City Council,
submitted that he took messages for the first applicant when she was on
assignments, both from her telephone and from his own telephone. He then
transmitted these messages to wherever she was.
7. On 19 November 1995 the applicants lodged a constitutional
complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.
8. They alleged that certain provisions of the Fight Against Crime Act
amending the G 10 Act disregarded their fundamental rights, notably the
right to secrecy of telecommunications (Article 10 of the Basic Law), the
right to self-determination in the sphere of information (Articles 2 § 1 and 1
§ 1 of the Basic Law), freedom of the press (Article 5 § 1 of the Basic Law)
and the right to effective recourse to the courts (Article 19 § 4 of the Basic
Law).