meet the constitutional requirements. To what degree the Basic Law requires notification of the person concerned by a secret informational measure carried out by the
state depends decisively amongst other things on whether and with what intensity
this measure encroaches on fundamental rights of the person concerned (see Federal Constitutional Court – BVerfG, Order of 13 June 2007 – 1 BvR 1550/03 et al.
–, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – NJW 2007, p. 2464 (2473)). § 5.2 of the North
Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act provides for a large number of different
measures which differ considerably from one another as to the quality and intensity
of their encroachment. In view of this, the complainants could have and should have
shown according to which of these measures notification is necessary in their view,
and to what degree the exceptions from the obligation of notification regulated in §
5.3 sentence 2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act are inappropriate in view of the gravity of the respective encroachment on fundamental rights.
Such statements can however only be found to a sufficient degree in the constitutional complaints with regard to measures according to § 5.2 no. 11 of the North RhineWestphalia Constitution Protection Act.
III.
The constitutional complaint of the complainants re 2 is also permissible insofar as it
addresses § 17 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act. In this
sense, the complaint deadline contained in § 93.3 of the Federal Constitutional Court
Act has been met. By virtue of the entry into force of § 5.2 no. 11 of the North RhineWestphalia Constitution Protection Act, the area of application of the general transmission provision contained in § 17 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act was made to cover the newly regulated measures, and hence partly
expanded. This constitutes a new fundamental rights-related cause of complaint for
which the complaint deadline is re- started (see BVerfGE 45, 104 (119); 78, 350
(356); 100, 313 (356)). The complaint of the complainants re 2 is restricted to this new
cause of complaint.
154
IV.
The constitutional complaint of the complainant re 1b is also admissible insofar as it
addresses § 5a.1 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act. In particular, the complaint deadline has been met. The complaint of the complainant re 1b is
restricted to the expansion of the area of application of the provision in the course of
the revision of the Constitution Protection Act.
155
The constitutional complaint of the complainant re 1a is, by contrast, inadmissible
with regard to § 5a.1 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act since
she has not shown that she is personally and presently concerned by the impugned
provision. To this end, she would have had to submit that with some probability her
fundamental rights are affected by the measures based on the impugned legal provisions (see BVerfGE 67, 157 (169-170); 100, 313 (354); 109, 279 (307-308)). This is
156
22/60