to the precise details of the actual carrying out of a specific measure. It may not be
carried out just anywhere in the broader area surrounding such places, but only in
those places that directly fulfil the statutory requirements. This is further ensured by
the requirement under Art. 33(2) second sentence BayPAG, applicable to all of the
options, that there must be relevant information on the situation. In this context, it is
essential that the place that has been identified as dangerous based on police information actually be frequented with motor vehicles (cf. Landtag of Bavaria document
15/10522 p. 2)
(2) The scope of the data cross-check authorised by Art. 33(2) third and fourth sentences BayPAG is also not objectionable under constitutional law. In this context, too,
the provision must be interpreted to mean that only such data records may be included in the cross-check as might be relevant to the purposes of the number plate recognition authorised under Art. 13(1) BayPAG (here, no. 2) (see para. 107 et seq.
above). This means that the data records selected to create the data base for crosschecking must be strictly limited to seeking such persons or objects with regard to
which there are factual indications that they might actually be found at the places
specified for the purposes set out in the provision. Data records without considerable
relevance for achieving the purpose set out in Art. 13(1) no. 2 BayPAG may not be
included in the database to be cross-checked.
121
(3) Thus, in an overall assessment, the provisions of Art. 33(2) second to fifth sentences, Art. 13(1) no. 2 BayPAG are constitutionally sound with regard to their constituent elements. If one balances the public interest in carrying out these measures
at the places specified in the provision against the impairment of the rights of the persons affected by the number plate recognition measures while taking into consideration the additional standards included in the provision, which also include, in particular, the prohibition of carrying out measures in an unlimited area (see para. 100
above), carrying out such measures is not disproportionate, provided the provisions
are interpreted in conformity with the Constitution.
122
cc) Nor is the provision objectionable under constitutional law with regard to its third
option, authorising automatic number plate recognition in “endangered places”
(Art. 33(2) second to fifth sentences, Art. 13(1) no. 3 BayPAG).
123
(1) The provision authorises automatic number plate recognition to be carried out in
transportation and utility systems or facilities, in means of public transportation, in official buildings or other particularly endangered objects, or in their immediate vicinity.
The explanatory memorandum to the draft act lists the examples of airports, train stations, public transportation services, military installations, nuclear power plants and
other endangered objects, such as the consulates of foreign states requiring special
protection on the basis of the current assessment of threats. The memorandum thus
focuses on the protection of the objects themselves, their function in public life and of
the persons located therein. These are legally protected interests of at least considerable weight.
124
23/34