ber of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party PKK, which is being observed by the North
Rhine-Westphalian constitution protection authority. He uses computer networks
which are connected to the Internet, both in his dwelling and in the premises of the
law firm. The office network is also used by the complainant re 2b, as well as by the
complainant re 2c, who is employed in the office as a freelancer.
2. Insofar as the constitutional complaints target § 5.2 no. 11 of the North RhineWestphalia Constitution Protection Act, the complainants complain of a violation of
Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1, Article 10.1 and Article 13.1 of the Basic
Law.
119
[The complainants submit the following:] Insofar as the provision provides for participation in communication facilities of the Internet, it regulates an encroachment on the
secrecy of telecommunication. An encroachment on Article 13 of the Basic Law is
said to be constituted by the secret access to information technology systems that is
further provided by the provision if the access computer is located in a dwelling. According to the complainants, it is relevant in this respect that personal conduct modes
enjoy special protection particularly by virtue of their realisation in the spatially separate dwelling. Such measures could also encroach on the general right of personality
and on the secrecy of telecommunication.
120
Insofar as measures according to § 5.2 no. 11 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act are to be regarded as an encroachment on Article 13 of the
Basic Law, the provision is already said to be unconstitutional because it allegedly
meets none of the special barrier reservations of Article 13.2 to 13.7 of the Basic Law.
Also, the principle of specifying [the fundamental right which is restricted] contained in
Article 19.1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law is said to not have been complied with.
121
§ 5.2 no. 11 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act is additionally
said to violate the principle of the clarity of provisions. The reference to the Act re Article 10 of the Basic Law contained in sentence 2 of the provision is said to be sufficiently determined neither in its preconditions, nor in its range. Further, there are said
to be no sufficient normative precautions to protect individual development in the core
area of private life. Such precautions are said to be required since privately used
computers in particular are frequently used today to process data with highly personal
contents. Finally, the principle of proportionality is said not to have been complied
with. The statutory encroachment threshold is said to have been placed too low. What
is more, there is said to be a lack of procedural precautions, such as a requirement of
a judicial order, to protect the person concerned. The data collected could also be diverted from its intended use to a too great degree or transmitted to other authorities.
122
3. The complainants further complain that § 5.3 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act allegedly violates the legal protection guarantee contained in
Article 19.4 of the Basic Law, as well as the substantive fundamental rights which
were encroached upon by measures according to § 5.2 of the North RhineWestphalia Constitution Protection Act. Sentence 2 of the provision is said to provide
123
16/60