20
WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
Parliament and applicable in the manner set out by the Federal
Constitutional Court in its judgment of 14 July 1999.
86. The Court further observes that the applicants considered the
impugned provisions of the amended G 10 Act not to constitute a valid
statutory basis, in the first place because the interception of
telecommunications interfered illegally with the sovereignty of the foreign
States in which the persons monitored resided.
87. The Court reiterates that the term “law” within the meaning of the
Convention refers back to national law, including rules of public
international law applicable in the State concerned (see, mutatis mutandis,
Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, § 68,
Series A no. 173; Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 56, Series A
no. 178; Stocké v. Germany, 19 March 1991, § 54, Series A no. 199; and
Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 90, ECHR 2005-IV). As regards
allegations that a respondent State has violated international law by
breaching the territorial sovereignty of a foreign State, the Court requires
proof in the form of concordant inferences that the authorities of the
respondent State have acted extraterritorially in a manner that is inconsistent
with the sovereignty of the foreign State and therefore contrary to
international law (see, in particular, Öcalan, cited above, § 90).
88. The Court observes that the impugned provisions of the amended
G 10 Act authorise the monitoring of international wireless
telecommunications, that is, telecommunications which are not effected via
fixed telephone lines but, for example, via satellite or radio relay links, and
the use of data thus obtained. Signals emitted from foreign countries are
monitored by interception sites situated on German soil and the data
collected are used in Germany. In the light of this, the Court finds that the
applicants have failed to provide proof in the form of concordant inferences
that the German authorities, by enacting and applying strategic monitoring
measures, have acted in a manner which interfered with the territorial
sovereignty of foreign States as protected in public international law.
89. The Court further observes that the applicants disputed, secondly,
that section 3(5) of the amended G 10 Act provided a valid legal basis for
the transmission of information. They argued that the federal legislature had
not been authorised vis-à-vis the Länder legislatures by the relevant
provisions on legislative powers laid down in the Basic Law, in particular
Article 73, to adopt such a provision. They were, therefore, claiming in
substance that the impugned provision of the amended G 10 Act failed to
comply with domestic law of a higher rank, namely the provisions on
legislative powers laid down in the German Constitution.
90. The Court reiterates in this connection that, whilst it is true that no
interference can be considered to be “in accordance with the law” unless the
decision (or statutory provision) occasioning it complied with the relevant
domestic law (of a higher rank), the logic of the system of safeguards