WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
3
9. In the applicants’ submission, technological progress had made it
possible to intercept telecommunications everywhere in the world and to
collect personal data. Numerous telecommunications could be monitored, in
the absence of any concrete suspicions, with the aid of catchwords which
remained secret. Strategic monitoring could then be used in respect of
individuals, preventing the press from carrying out effective investigations
into sensitive areas covered by the Act.
10. The Federal Constitutional Court, having held a hearing, delivered
its judgment on 14 July 1999 (running to 125 pages). It found that the
constitutional complaint lodged by the second applicant was inadmissible.
The court noted that a constitutional complaint could be lodged directly
against a statute if the person concerned could not know whether there had
actually been an implementing measure applying the statute to him or her.
The complainant, however, had to substantiate sufficiently his or her
argument that his or her fundamental rights were likely to be breached by
measures taken on the basis of the impugned statute.
11. The Federal Constitutional Court noted that it was irrelevant that the
applicants did not reside in Germany, because the impugned provisions
were aimed at monitoring international telecommunications. However, it
held that, unlike the first applicant, the second applicant had failed to
substantiate sufficiently his claim that his rights under the Basic Law were
likely to be interfered with by measures based on the impugned provisions
of the amended G 10 Act. In the absence of any further details, the mere fact
that he dealt with the first applicant’s telecommunications in her absence
was not sufficient to demonstrate this.
12. Partly allowing the first applicant’s constitutional complaint, the
Federal Constitutional Court held that certain provisions of the Fight
Against Crime Act were incompatible or only partly compatible with the
principles laid down in the Basic Law (see “Relevant domestic law and
practice” below, paragraphs 18 et seq.). In particular, section 3(1), first and
second sentence, point 5, section 3(3), (4), (5), first sentence, (7), first
sentence, (8), second sentence, and section 9(2), third sentence, of the Act
were found to be incompatible with Article 10, Article 5 or Article 19 § 4 of
the Basic Law (see paragraphs 26 et seq. below). It fixed a deadline of
30 June 2001 for the legislature to bring the situation into line with the
Constitution.
13. On 29 June 2001 a new version of the G 10 Act came into force
(BGBl. I 2001, pp. 1254, 2298) and the G 10 Act in its version as amended
by the Fight Against Crime Act of 28 October 1994 ceased to apply.