II.
The constitutional complaints are directed, first, against the granting of various investigative powers. The challenged powers include the authorisation to question persons pursuant to § 20c BKAG, as well as the use of special means of data collection
outside of private homes pursuant to § 20g secs. 1 to 3 BKAG including, in particular,
the covert monitoring and recording of non-public speech, image recording, the application of tracking devices, and the use of police informants and undercover investigators. The constitutional complaints also challenge the power to carry out visual and
acoustic surveillance of private homes pursuant to § 20h BKAG, to conduct electronic
profile searching pursuant to § 20j BKAG, to access information technology systems
pursuant to § 20k BKAG, to monitor on-going telecommunications pursuant to § 20l
BKAG as well as to collect telecommunications traffic data pursuant to § 20m secs. 1
and 3 BKAG. Insofar, the challenges also encompass § 20u BKAG which deals with
the protection of persons having the right to refuse to give evidence, as well as § 20w
BKAG which sets out the duty to inform affected persons at the conclusion of the surveillance measure.
2
Second, the constitutional complaints are directed at provisions on the use of data.
This affects, firstly, the provision on the use of data collected in accordance with SubTitle 3a of the Act pursuant to § 20v sec. 4 sentence 2 BKAG by the Federal Criminal
Police Office itself. The power pursuant to § 20v sec. 5 BKAG – with the exception of
sentence 3 no. 2 – to transfer this data to other domestic public authorities is also
challenged. Finally, § 14 sec. 1 sentence 1 nos. 1 and 3 and sentence 2, sec. 7 BKAG, which generally permits the transfer of data to authorities in third countries, is also challenged. § 14a BKAG, which additionally establishes a separate power to
transfer personal data to Member States of the European Union, however, is not at issue in this proceedings.
3
[…]
4
III.
The complainants in the proceedings 1 BvR 966/09 are lawyers, journalists, a doctor
and a certified psychologist, most of whom are active in the field of human rights politics. The complainants in the proceedings 1 BvR 1140/09 are former and current
Members of the German Bundestag – acting here as private individuals –, who are also largely active in human rights politics and some of whom also work as lawyers or
doctors. They claim a substantive violation of Art. 2 sec. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1
sec. 1, Art. 3 sec. 1, Art. 5 sec. 1 sentence 2, Art. 10, Art. 12, Art. 13, in part also in
conjunction with Art. 1 sec. 1, Art. 19 sec. 4 GG and Art. 20 sec. 3 GG.
[…]
5
6-40
IV.
[…]
41-73
7/71