not evident here. The complainant re 1a has stated nothing from which only the most
distant probability emerges that her account content data could be of interest to the
constitution protection authority. According to the factual preconditions of § 5a.1 of
the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act and the nature of the measures regulated, one may also not presume for practically all and sundry that they
might be affected (see re such cases BVerfGE 109, 279 (308); 113, 348 (363)).
V.
The complaint deadline contained in § 93.3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act
has not been met insofar as the constitutional complaint of the complainants re 2 addresses § 7.2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act. This provision entered into force back in 1994. It is without interest here whether the Parliament
handing down the revision of the Constitution Protection Act re-included § 7.2 of the
North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act in its intention, since the complaint deadline is not re-started thereby (see BVerfGE 11, 255 (259-260); 18, 1 (9);
43, 108 (116); 80, 137 (149)).
157
The complainants re 2 are not deprived of the possibility to claim the unconstitutionality of the impugned provision by virtue of the inadmissibility of the constitutional
complaint with regard to this item (see on this Federal Constitutional Court, Order of
the 1st Chamber of the First Senate of 21 November 1996 – 1 BvR 1862/96 –, Neue
Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, p. 650). If the complainants re 2 fear being affected
by measures according to § 7.2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act, they may obtain legal protection from the administrative courts against this.
Preliminary and precautionary legal protection can also in principle be granted in
such instances. The circumstance that a legitimate interest in the ruling and the probability of a burdening measure must be sufficiently shown for this does not rule out the
fundamental availability of recourse to the legal protection of the non-constitutional
courts. In the interest of effective fundamental rights protection, the requirements
placed on the legitimate interest in a ruling may not be excessive in the proceedings
before the non-constitutional courts (see in general terms on this BVerfGE 110, 77
(88)).
158
VI.
The constitutional complaint of the complainants re 2 is also inadmissible insofar as
it addresses the provisions of § 8.4 sentence 2 in conjunction with §§ 10 and 11 of the
North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act on management of personal data
in electronic case files. The principle of the subsidiarity of the constitutional complaint
has not been met as to these provisions.
159
According to the principle of subsidiarity, the constitutional complaint of a subject of
fundamental rights affected by the impugned legal provision is inadmissible if he or
she can obtain legal protection in an acceptable manner by taking recourse to the
160
23/60