ject to interpretation (cf. BayVerfGH, Judgment of 28 March 2003 – Vf. 7-VII-00
u.a. –, juris, para. 103; also SächsVerfGH, Judgment of 10 July 2003 – Vf. 43-II-00 –,
juris, para. 196). In contrast, automatic number plate recognition measures authorised for places outside the 30 km area is not sufficiently specified and limited. An
authorisation to generally carry out such measures on transit routes on the entire territory of the Land does not comply with specificity requirements and goes too far. The
statutory explanation of the term transit route that follows in parentheses does not
change this: a sufficiently clear limitation of such checks is not ensured given that
“other routes of considerable significance for cross-border movement” are mentioned
in addition to federal motorways and European routes.
(2) Also with regard to this variant of the constituent elements of the provision, the
cross-checking of number plates with the data records on persons and objects sought
pursuant to Art. 33(2) third and fourth sentences BayPAG must be suited to the purpose of Art. 13(1) no.5 BayPAG. Only such data records may be fed into the database used for cross-checking as might be significant in preventing or suppressing violations of the law on residency or in combatting cross-border crime. As set out
above, Art. 33(2) third and fourth sentences can and must be interpreted accordingly.
150
(3) Provided that the places located outside the 30 km area in which automatic number plate recognition may be carried out in the context of random sweep searches
are limited in a sufficiently specific provision, the drafting of these constituent elements is, for the rest, not objectionable under constitutional law, even from an overall
perspective. While the measures here have the potential to be particularly extensive
and objectively not very limited, this is constitutionally justified, as an offset to the
opening of the borders and the abolition of border checks, if one balances all considerations while taking into account the general requirements of Art. 33(2) second and
fifth sentences BayPAG, which also include the prohibition of number plate recognition measures carried out in an unlimited area (see para. 113 et seq. above).
151
In this context, it is significant that the impact of random sweep searches is further
mitigated by the standards of EU law giving effect to the rule of law. According to the
case-law of the European Court of Justice, provisions concerning random sweep
searches are not in conflict with EU law only if they are embedded within a legal
framework that ensures that in practice they cannot have the same effect as border
checks. In particular where there are indications that they do have the same effect as
border checks, specification and limitation must ensure that the practical carrying out
of random sweep searches is framed in a manner so as to avoid having the same
effect as border checks. Finally, the legal framework must be sufficiently precise and
detailed so that the necessity of the sweep searches as well as the specifically authorised measures themselves can be subject to review (cf. CJEU, Judgment of 21
June 2017, A., C-9/16, EU:C:2017:483, para. 37 et seq.). According to the case-law
of the regular courts, which must measure German law against these requirements,
provisions like the challenged ones do not satisfy EU law standards and may not be
applied in this form without a specifying binding and transparent rule on the intensity,
152
29/34