Dr. Andreas Pfitzmann have in particular made statements on the technical questions
related to secret access to information technology systems; Professor Dr. Ulrich
Sieber also made a statement on questions related to comparative law and on possible requirements as to the lawfulness of the measures discussed here.
III.
Statements were made in the oral hearing by: the complainants, the Federal Government, the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Federal Office for the Protection of
the Constitution, the Federal Office for Security in Information Technology (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Kommunikationstechnik), the Land Government and the
Landtag of North Rhine-Westphalia, the North Rhine-Westphalian Land Office for the
Protection of the Constitution, the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and
Freedom of Information, the Land Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of
Information of North Rhine-Westphalia, and as experts Andreas Bogk, Dirk Fox, Professor Dr. Felix Freiling, Professor Dr. Andreas Pfitzmann and Professor Dr. Ulrich
Sieber.
149
B.
The constitutional complaints are only partly admissible.
150
I.
Insofar as the constitutional complaints address § 5.2 no. 11 of the North RhineWestphalia Constitution Protection Act, there are no objections as to their admissibility.
151
II.
As to the complaint of the unconstitutionality of § 5.3 of the North Rhine-Westphalia
Constitution Protection Act lodged by all complainants, the constitutional complaints
are only admissible insofar as they relate to the notification subsequent to a measure
according to § 5.2 no. 11 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act.
In other respects, the reasoning of the constitutional complaints does not meet the requirements of § 23.1 sentence 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act
(Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BVerfGG). Accordingly, a constitutional complaint is to be reasoned with sufficient grounds. The complainant must explain the
constitutional requirements with which the impugned measure collides. In order to do
so, he or she must indicate to what degree it is alleged to violate the designated fundamental rights (see Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (Entscheidungen
des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – BVerfGE) 99, 84 (87); 108, 370 (386)).
152
This is not the case here insofar as the complainants complain in general terms that
the regulation on subsequent notification of intelligence service measures within the
meaning of § 5.2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act does not
153
21/60