V.
[…]
74
B.
The constitutional complaints are for the most part admissible.
75
I.
The complainants’ constitutional complaints are directed against the surveillance
and investigative powers of the Federal Criminal Police Office, and thereby specifically also against the inadequate protection of the core area of private life as well as
against the surveillance of persons having the right to refuse to give evidence, and
against provisions on the use of data. The complaints are directed directly against the
respective provisions authorising the Federal Criminal Police Office, but also indirectly against further provisions with which the legislature supplements these powers in
order to guarantee their proportionality and without which their constitutionality cannot be evaluated. Upon a reasonable interpretation of the constitutional complaints,
the challenges thus cover § 14 sec. 1 sentence 1 nos. 1 and 3, sentence 2, sec. 7, §
20c, § 20g secs. 1 to 3, § 20h, § 20j, § 20k, § 20l, § 20m secs. 1 and 3, § 20u secs. 1,
2 and 4, § 20v sec. 4 sentence 2, sec. 5 (except sentence 3 no. 2 regarding which the
complaint was not substantiated) and sec. 6 as well as § 20w BKAG.
76
II.
[…]
77-78
III.
The constitutional complaints are admissible for the rest.
79
1. The complainants have standing to lodge a constitutional complaint. They claim
that the challenged provisions may be directly violating their fundamental rights. […]
80
2. The challenged provisions affect the complainants directly, individually and
presently. Their constitutional complaints thus fulfil the specific requirements for constitutional complaints lodged directly against a statute.
81
a) The complainants do not lack the condition of being directly affected. Admittedly,
the challenged powers must be implemented by means of further executing acts.
However, a statute is also deemed to directly affect complainants in cases where they
cannot pursue a legal remedy due to the fact that they do not actually gain knowledge
of any action being executed. In such cases, they have standing to lodge a constitutional complaint directly against a statute (cf. Decisions of the Federal Constitutional
Court, Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – BVerfGE 133, 277 <311
para. 83>; established case-law). In principle, the investigative and surveillance measures authorised by the challenged provisions are carried out covertly. The obligations to notify contained in the Act only partially compensate for this, since they possi-
82
8/71