vate homes this already results from Art. 13 secs. 3 and 4 GG (cf. in this respect
BVerfGE 109, 279 <357 et seq.>) and directly follows from the principle of proportionality (cf. BVerfGE 120, 274 <331 et seq.>; 125, 260 <337 et seq.>).
The legislature must combine the imperative of a precautionary independent review
framed in specific and legally clear form with strict requirements in respect of the content and the reasons for judicial orders. Also deriving from this is the requirement that
the application for an order have a sufficiently substantiated justification and limits,
which makes it possible in the first place for the courts or an independent body to exercise effective review. In particular, the authority submitting the application must provide comprehensive information on the situation in question (cf. BVerfGE 103, 142
<152 and 153>). In connection with this, it is the duty and obligation of the court or the
other decision-makers to independently reach a decision on whether the covert surveillance measure being applied for fulfils the legal requirements. The needed material and staffing requirements must be provided by the judicial administration of the
Laender and the Chief Justice of the competent court (cf. BVerfGE 125, 260 <338>).
118
3. In addition to the constitutional requirements for the general conditions for interference, the respective fundamental rights in conjunction with Art. 1 sec. 1 GG give
rise to particular requirements with regard to the protection of the core area of private
life in the context of surveillance measures causing a particularly serious interference.
119
a) The constitutional protection of the core area of private life guarantees a highly
private area for the individual which is free from surveillance. It has its roots in each of
the fundamental rights affected by surveillance measures in conjunction with Art. 1.
sec. 1 GG and ensures a core of human dignity that is beyond the state’s reach and
provides constitutional protection against such measures. Even paramount interests
of the general public cannot justify an interference with this absolutely protected area
of private life (cf. BVerfGE 109, 279 <313>; established case-law).
120
The possibility of expressing inner processes such as impressions and feelings, as
well as reflections, views, and experiences of a highly personal nature belongs to the
free development of personality in the core area of private life (cf. BVerfGE 109, 279
<313>; 120, 274 <335>; established case-law). Particular protection is afforded to
non-public communication with persons enjoying the highest level of personal trust,
conducted under the reasonable assumption that no surveillance is taking place, as is
the case, in particular, in a private home. This group of persons includes, in particular,
spouses or partners, siblings and direct relatives in ascending or descending line, in
particular if they live in the same household, and can also include defence counsel,
doctors, the clergy and close personal friends (cf. BVerfGE 109, 279 <321 et seq.>).
This group only partially overlaps with those persons who have the right to refuse to
give evidence. These conversations do no lose their overall highly personal character
merely because they combine highly personal with everyday matters (cf. BVerfGE
109, 279 <330>; 113, 348 <391 and 392>).
121
In contrast, communication directly about criminal offences is not protected, not
122
17/71