pected of a crime carried out close to borders may not be of the same nature as border checks (cf. CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 2010, Melki and Abdeli, C-188/10 and
C-189/10, EU:C:2010:363, paras. 69 and 70 and 74 and 75; Judgment of 21 June
2017, A., C-9/16, EU:C:2017:483, paras. 34 et seq. and 63). Thus, an offsetting of
the abolition of border checks based on European Union law may only be sought in
measures that are not specifically limited to persons crossing the border but that may
also affect third persons.
This is not disproportionate. It is within the legislature’s political discretion to regard
the occasional impairment by automatic number plate recognition measures carried
out without specific grounds in order to combat the increased dangers brought about
by opening borders as balanced by the freedom gained by opening the borders. Also,
this opening of borders benefits everyone. In addition, it can be assumed that persons living near the border cross the border more frequently than those living in inland. The fact that people living in the border area may thus occasionally be subject
to measures even if they did not cross the border does not make the measures unreasonable towards them under the prohibition of excessive measures.
146
(c) Obviously, automatic number plate recognition measures are only proportionate
to the extent that they have a clear connection with the border, and that the connection is set out in statutory provisions satisfying the requirements of specificity. This is
mostly, but not completely, satisfied by the provision.
147
In this context, the protection of legal interests pursued by automatic number plate
recognition is not objectionable under constitutional law. The protection of legal interests has a clear connection to the border. Automatic number plate recognition serves
to suppress unlawful residence and to combat cross-border crime and thus to combat
dangers that have become particularly urgent through the opening of borders. In this
context, the term cross-border crime is subject to interpretation and sufficiently specific. It targets the type of crimes that take advantage of the factual and legal characteristics that exist in a border situation or close to the border, in particular the difficulty
of cross-border searches and law enforcement (cf. Constitutional Court of the Free
State of Saxony, Sächsischer Verfassungsgerichtshof – SächsVerfGH, Judgment of
10 July 2003 – Vf. 43-II-00 –, juris, para. 212).
148
In contrast, the determination of the places in which automatic number plate recognition measures may be carried out is constitutionally sound only in part. In this regard, the legislature must ensure that only places with a clear connection with the
border are chosen. Unspecific provisions that could lead to the practice of carrying
out measures without any connection with the border and of moving them generally
farther inland are incompatible with this. Accordingly, the authorisation of automatic
number plate recognition within an area of 30 km from the border is not objectionable
under constitutional law. Nor is it objectionable to authorise number plate recognition
at public facilities serving international traffic. These obviously have a spatial connection to the border. Also, the term ‘public facilities serving international traffic’ is sub-
149
28/34