ogy and investigation technique (see on telecommunication surveillance BVerfGE
113, 348 (391-392); on acoustic monitoring of dwellings BVerfGE 109, 279 (318,
324)). In particular, available information technology security devices are to be deployed. If there are concrete indications in an individual case that a certain data collection will affect the core area of private life, it must be avoided in principle. The
situation is different if for instance concrete indications exist that core area-related
communication contents are linked with contents which fall within the goal of the investigation in order to prevent surveillance.
(b) In many cases, the core area relevance of the collected data will not be ascertained prior to or during data collection. The legislature has to ensure by means of
suitable procedural provisions that if data has been collected which relates to the core
area of private life, the intensity of the violation of the core area and its impact on the
personality and development of the person concerned remain as low as possible.
282
Decisive significance in terms of protection attaches to the viewing of the collected
data as to contents which are relevant to the core area, for which suitable procedures
are to be provided which sufficiently accommodate the interests of the person concerned. If viewing reveals that data was collected with relevance to the core area, it is
to be deleted without delay. Passing on or exploitation is to be ruled out (see BVerfGE
109, 279 (324); 113, 348 (392)).
283
dd) The Constitution Protection Act does not contain the required provisions protecting the core area. Nothing else emerges if the reference in § 5.2 no. 11 sentence 2 of
the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act to the Act re Article 10 of the
Basic Law is included despite its undeterminedness. This statute also does not contain precautions to protect the core area of private life.
284
In contradistinction to the view taken by the Government of the Land North RhineWestphalia, § 4.1 of the Act re Article 10 of the Basic Law may not even be referred to
if the reference of § 5.2 no. 11 sentence 2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution
Protection Act is understood broadly such that it covers this provision. § 4.1 of the Act
re Article 10 of the Basic Law only regulates that collected data is to be deleted which
are not or are no longer needed, and hence regulates the general principle of necessity. The provision by contrast does not contain any special standards for the collection, viewing and deletion of data which can show a connection to the core area. The
principle of necessity cannot be equated with constitutionally required respect for the
core area of private life. The core area is rather in particular not amenable to being
qualified by contrary investigation interests, as was explicitly introduced by the application of the principle of necessity (see BVerfGE 109, 279 (314)).
285
d) The violation of the general right of personality in its manifestation as providing
protection of the confidentiality and integrity of information technology systems (Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law) leads to the nullity of § 5.2 no.
11 sentence 1 alternative 2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection
Act.
286
50/60