a) The complainant bringing the first constitutional complaint is a university lecturer,
who, according to his own statement, works in the area of criminal law in the field of
narcotics and who, in connection with his work, maintains numerous contacts abroad
which take place, inter alia, per telephone and per fax. As, pursuant to § 3.1 sent. 2
no. 4 of the G 10 Act, the introduction of narcotics from abroad into the Federal Republic of Germany is one of the areas in which the Federal Intelligence Service obtains intelligence by monitoring telecommunications traffic, it is also possible that the
complainant's telecommunications traffic is screened and recorded and that its content is taken note of. If the screened telecommunications traffic contains one of the
search concepts, a relevance check is performed and it is possible that the telecommunications traffic is used by the Federal Intelligence Service. In view of the broad
scope of the constituent elements of a criminal offence set forth in § 3.5 of the G 10
Act, it cannot be excluded that the recorded telecommunications traffic is transferred
to other agencies triggering further examination by these agencies.
150
b) The first of the two complainants bringing the second constitutional complaint (2a)
is a German citizen with her permanent residence in Uruguay. In her statement, she
claims that she works as a free-lance journalist for German and foreign newspapers,
radio and television stations especially on the topics that are subject to monitoring by
the Federal Intelligence Service. This statement is also sufficient for substantiating
that her fundamental rights are being affected because, for the following two reasons,
her statement cannot be more specific: (1) telecommunications monitoring takes
place without any actual suspicion and is kept secret, and (2) the measures that follow monitoring are also beyond the complainant's knowledge.
151
The fact that the complainant does not live in Germany does not preclude the possibility that her fundamental rights are being affected. The complainant's telecommunications traffic can be covered by the monitoring measures, as the monitoring measures are targeted especially to international telecommunications links. Therefore,
the complainant's fundamental rights can be violated even if her permanent residence is abroad.
152
To the extent that the complainant extends her challenge to § 1.1, § 3.1(1) and § 3.1
sent. 2 no. 1 of the G 10 Act, the challenge is admissible because the one-year time
limit set forth in § 93.3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act has not lapsed. Certainly, the regulations have not been amended by the 1994 Fight against Crime Act. However, the Fight against Crime Act, in particular the provisions on the powers to use
and transfer data set forth in § 3.3 and § 3.5 of the G 10 Act (new version), have embedded the regulations in a new legal environment so that the implementation of the
older regulations can now have a new negative impact. Pursuant to the established
case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court, this tolls the one-year time limit, before
the running of which constitutional complaints against statutes are still admissible (cf.
BVerfGE 45, p. 108 [at p. 119]; 78, p. 350 [at p. 356]).
153
c) The first of the two complainants bringing the third constitutional complaint (3a) is
154
39/77