that personal data may only be transferred in accordance with the prerequisites of the
temporary injunction order issued on 5 July 1995, and that a record of the transfer is
kept. In this respect, the Federal Constitutional Court refrains from changing the present state of the law again only for the short transition period until a new regulation is
enacted, although this means that in this transition period, the parts of the regulation
that the parliament can enact again in the framework of a new regulation without violating the Basic Law may not be applied. If, on the contrary, the provision that has
been declared unconstitutional were to remain applicable until the enactment of the
new regulation, transfers of data would be possible that violate fundamental rights. In
the oral argument, no evidence was provided that the temporary injunction order resulted in considerable detriment to the Federal Republic of Germany in the past. This
aspect was the one that tipped the balance in the weighing of consequences. If the
parliament regards the state of the law that is valid in the transition period as hardly
tolerable, it is the duty of the parliament to change this state of the law by quickly enacting a new regulation.
§ 3.7 of the G 10 Act is to be applied with the limitation that the data must be
marked. § 3.8(2) of the G 10 Act is applicable with the limitation that no utilisation of
the data has taken place before it is deleted. § 9.2(3) of the G 10 Act is applicable
with the limitation that the Commission's power to control also extends to measures
pursuant to §§ 3.3, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.8 of the G 10 Act.
Papier
Grimm
Kühling
Jaeger
Haas
Hömig
Steiner
76/77
308