Abstract
The radical change in telecommunications technologies over the last fifteen years has enabled new techniques to lawfully intercept telecommunications and to gather digital evidence. These include covert remote access to data storages and lawful interception prior to communication encryption by hidden software tools. The specific intrusiveness of these measures, specifically their impact on fundamental rights, have been reflected in the decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court. In particular, the development of the new fundamental right to integrity and confidentiality of IT systems in the judgment of 27 February 2008 has provided modernized constitutional guarantees, leading to the amendment of the legal framework governing preventive measures. With the judgment of 16 April 2016 on the constitutionality of these new provisions, the Federal Constitutional Court has countered the expansion of investigative powers through laws or their extensive application, developing essential requirements for covert surveillance measures. The German legal system is characterized by a strict and fundamental distinction between preventive measures (such as crime prevention) and investigative measures (such as criminal investigation). The distinction results in different legal competences of (police) authorities and a distinct legal framework following an altered proportionality assessment. As a result, the safeguards, checks and balances for investigative measures need to be at least as high as those for preventive measures, requiring corresponding amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is therefore surprising to find that the Code of Criminal Procedure (governing investigative measures) has only undergone minor amendments, such as the introduction of § 100i StPO governing the use of International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) catchers. The use of covert software to intercept telecommunications prior to encryption, conversely, lacks specific rules, albeit the strict requirements laid down for preventive measures in § 20k BKAG a fortiori should apply on investigative measures of the same nature. Only regarding computer-assisted searches, the German Federal Supreme Court has ruled in 2007 that such a measure cannot be based upon the existing legal bases for the lack of adequate safeguards. This lack of modernization of the rules applicable to criminal investigation appears unfortunate, as the measures in question, in the view of the authors, should not be based upon the traditional rules designed for physical wire-tapping of telephone lines. Rather, the specific safeguards laid down in § 20l (2) BKAG, such as the requirement to automatically undo alterations imposed upon the infiltrated system, should be codified for investigative measures, as well as to maintain a comparable level of protection of fundamental rights. However, currently there are no signs that the legislator intends to take any steps to amend the corresponding legal framework for investigative measures.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CoE Convention on Cybercrime, ETS 185, http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680081561. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 2.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 608285—EUROPEAN INFORMATICS DATA EXCHANGE FRAMEWORK FOR COURTS AND EVIDENCE, http://www.evidenceproject.eu/. The views expressed in this chapter are solely the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EVIDENCE consortium as a whole. The content of this chapter does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.
- 3.
Hessisches Datenschutzgesetz (1970), GVBl. 1970, 625.
- 4.
Gesetz zum Schutz vor Mißbrauch personenbezogener Daten bei der Datenverarbeitung (1977), BGBl. 1977, 201.
- 5.
BVerfG, Order of 16 July 1969—1 BvL 19/63—BVerfGE 27, 1.
- 6.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 15 December 1983—1 BvR 209/83, 1 BvR 484/83, 1 BvR 420/83, 1 BvR 362/83, 1 BvR 269/83, 1 BvR 440/83—BVerfGE 65, 1.
- 7.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, English version: http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/englisch_gg/index.html. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 8.
These measures also include all measures related to disaster prevention and readiness, crowd-management on sports events or political manifestations, or all sorts of minor illegitimate behaviour, which does not qualify as crime for being below the threshold of criminal activity (such as parking violations).
- 9.
Landgericht Hamburg, Decision of 13 September 2010—608 Qs 17/10; Landgericht Landshut, 4 Qs 346/10.
- 10.
Gesetz über das Bundeskriminalamt und die Zusammenarbeit des Bundes und der Länder in kriminalpolizeilichen Angelegenheiten (Artikel 1 des Gesetzes über das Bundeskriminalamt und die Zusammenarbeit des Bundes und der Länder in kriminalpolizeilichen Angelegenheiten) (Bundeskriminalamtgesetz—BKAG); https://www.gesetze-im-Internet.de/bkag_1997/BJNR165010997.html. Accessed 10 January 2017.
- 11.
Niedersächsisches Gesetz über die öffentliche Sicherheit und Ordnung (Nds. SOG) in der Fassung, 19 January 2005. http://www.nds-voris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&query=SOG+ND+Inhaltsverzeichnis&psml=bsvorisprod.psml&max=true. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 12.
Strafprozessordnung, English version: https://www.gesetze-im-Internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 13.
Gesetz über die Bundespolizei (Bundespolizeigesetz—BPolG), https://www.gesetze-im-Internet.de/bgsg_1994/BJNR297900994.html. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 14.
Gesetz über das Zollkriminalamt und die Zollfahndungsämter (Zollfahndungsdienstgesetz—ZFdG), https://www.gesetze-im-Internet.de/zfdg/BJNR320210002.html. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 15.
S.a. FN 7.
- 16.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—BGHSt 51, 211, http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2007&Sort=3&anz=16&pos=0&nr=38779&linked=bes&Blank=1&file=dokument.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 17.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—headnote.
- 18.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—para. 5 with further references.
- 19.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—para. 10.
- 20.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—para. 21.
- 21.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—para. 18.
- 22.
BGH, Order of 31 January 2007—StB 18/06—para. 22.
- 23.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. (1–333), http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20080227_1bvr037007en.html. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 24.
The latest version of the VSG NRW is available at https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_text_anzeigen?v_id=5520071121100436295. Accessed 26 September 2016.
- 25.
BVerfG, BVerfGE 106, 28 (37–38).
- 26.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 291.
- 27.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 292.
- 28.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 293.
- 29.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 308.
- 30.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 295.
- 31.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 296, 297.
- 32.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 302.
- 33.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 306.
- 34.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 307, 309.
- 35.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 308.
- 36.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 166.
- 37.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 167.
- 38.
See on telecommunication surveillance BVerfG, BVerfGE 113, 348 (391–392); on acoustic monitoring of dwellings BVerfG, BVerfGE 109, 279 (318, 324).
- 39.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 282.
- 40.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 188.
- 41.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 184.
- 42.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 185.
- 43.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 185.
- 44.
See BVerfG, BVerfGE 89, 1 (12); 103, 142 (150–151).
- 45.
See BVerfG, BVerfGE 109, 279 (309, 327).
- 46.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 192.
- 47.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 194.
- 48.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 193, 195.
- 49.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 196.
- 50.
See BVerfG, BVerfGE 65, 1 (43); 84, 192 (194).
- 51.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 198–200.
- 52.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 200.
- 53.
See BVerfG, BVerfGE 99, 185 (193); 114, 339 (346).
- 54.
See Federal Statistical Office (2007), p. 113.
- 55.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 172.
- 56.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 176.
- 57.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 178.
- 58.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 179.
- 59.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 180.
- 60.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 233.
- 61.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 181.
- 62.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 204.
- 63.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 221.
- 64.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 224.
- 65.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 226.
- 66.
See BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008—1 BvR 370/07—para. 247 et seq. for examples.
- 67.
Köpp et al. (2009), p. 43.
- 68.
Kudlich (2008), p. 478.
- 69.
Tschentscher (2008), p. 383.
- 70.
Bär (2008), p. 325.
- 71.
Schramm and Jansen (2008), p. 6.
- 72.
Gesetz zur Abwehr von Gefahren des internationalen Terrorismus durch das Bundeskriminalamt of 25 December 2008 (BGBl.I, 3083), http://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl108s3083.pdf. Accessed 23 September 2016.
- 73.
These circumstances are elaborated further in the provision.
- 74.
Subsection 3a: „Abwehr von Gefahren des internationalen Terrorismus“ (The Protection Against Threats from International Terrorism).
- 75.
Bundesministerium des Innern and Bundesministerium der Justiz (2013), p. 26.
- 76.
Bundesministerium des Innern and Bundesministerium der Justiz (2013), pp. 8 et seq.
- 77.
Kugelmann (2014), § 1 para. 5 et seq.
- 78.
Kugelmann (2014), § 20 k para. 1 et seq.
- 79.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2016/04/rs20160420_1bvr096609.html. Accessed 23 September 2016.
- 80.
Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1 (1), Article 3 (1), Article 5 (1) sentence 2, Article 10, Article 12, and Article 13, partially in conjunction with Article 1 (1), Article 19 (4), and Article 20 (3) GG; See BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 2 et seq., 5.
- 81.
See BVerfGE 67, 157 (173); 70, 278 (286); 104, 337 (347 ff.); 120, 274 (318 f.); 125, 260 (316); constant jurisdiction.
- 82.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 96 et seq.
- 83.
See BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 145 et seq.
- 84.
See BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—headnote 1.b), para. 103–144: 104–108, 109–113, 114–116, 117–118, 119–129, 131–133, 134–143, 144.
- 85.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 94.
- 86.
See BVerfG, BVerfGE 113, 348 (375 ff.); 120, 378 (407 f.); 133, 277 (336 para. 140); constant jurisdiction.
- 87.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 94.
- 88.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 105.
- 89.
Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1 (1) GG.
- 90.
Article 10 (1) GG.
- 91.
See BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—operative provision 3.
- 92.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—operative provision 4.
- 93.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 208, 217 et seq.
- 94.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 209 et seq.
- 95.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 212.
- 96.
§ 20k (1) sentence 2 BKAG.
- 97.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 213.
- 98.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 217–220.
- 99.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 221.
- 100.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 223 et seq.
- 101.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 224.
- 102.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 224 et seq.
- 103.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 226.
- 104.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 129, 226; See BVerfGE 109, 279 (318 f., 332 f.); 113, 348 (392); 120, 274 (337, 339).
- 105.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 206.
- 106.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 207.
- 107.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 228.
- 108.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 232.
- 109.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 234.
- 110.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 246.
- 111.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 253 et seq.
- 112.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 275 et seq.
- 113.
Federal Constitutional Court (2016), Press Release no. 19/2016.
- 114.
BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—para. 359.
- 115.
Separate opinions to Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09: Eichberger (para. 1–16) and Schluckebier (para. 1–29).
- 116.
Separate opinion to Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—Eichberger, para. 7.
- 117.
Separate opinion to Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016—1 BvR 966/09—1 BvR 1140/09—Schluckebier, para. 16.
- 118.
Sachs (2016), p. 664.
- 119.
Wiemers (2016), p. 840.
- 120.
Lührig (2016).
- 121.
Buchholz (2016), p. 906.
- 122.
See, e.g., BVerfG, Order of 4 April 2006—1 BvR 518/02—BVerfGE 115, 320; Judgment of 11 March 2008—1 BvR 2074/05, 1 BvR 1254/07—BVerfGE 120, 378; Judgment of 2 March 2010–1 BvR 256/08—et al., BVerfGE 125, 260; Judgment of 24 April 2013—1 BvR 1215/07—BVerfGE 133, 277.
- 123.
August 2016.
References
Bär W (2008) BVerfG: Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Online-Durchsuchung und anderer verdeckter Ermittlungsmaßnahmen in Datennetzen. MMR 5:315–327
Buchholz G (2016) Kein Sonderopfer für die Sicherheit. BVerfG erklärt BKAG für verfassungswidrig. NVwZ 13:906–909
Bundesministerium des Innern and Bundesministerium der Justiz (2013) Bericht der Regierungskommission zur Überprüfung der Sicherheitsgesetzgebung in Deutschland, http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2013/regierungskommission-sicherheitsgesetzgebung.pdf;jsessionid=0A82D2A7A0445A4E0C02956395DEF2C8.2_cid295?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 23 Sept 2016
Federal Constitutional Court (2016) Press release no. 19/2016, 20 April 2016, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-019.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2016
Federal Statistical Office (2007) Statistisches Jahrbuch 2007 Für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland/Statistical Yearbook 2007 For the Federal Republic of Germany. Wiesbaden, https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/StatistischesJahrbuch/Jahrbuch2007.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 23 Sept 2016
Köpp L, Kowalzik S, Recktenwald B (2009) BVerfG v. 27.2.2008 — 1 BvR 370/07 u. 1 BvR 595/07. RubRR 2:36–46
Kudlich H (2008) Enge Fesseln für „Landes- und Bundestrojaner“ – Anforderungen an die Zulässigkeit einer (sicherheitsrechtlichen) Online-Durchsuchung. JA 6:475–478
Kugelmann D (2014) BKA-Gesetz. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Lührig N (2016) BKA-Gesetz: Schutzkonzept für Anwälte vor heimlicher Überwachung verfassungswidrig, 20 April 2016. https://anwaltsblatt.anwaltverein.de/de/rechtsprechung/bka-gesetz-schutzkonzept-von-anwaelten-vor-heimlicher-ueberwachung-verfassungswidrig. Accessed 23 Sept 2016
Sachs M (2016) Grundrechte: Heimliche Überwachungsmaßnahmen. Nur grundsätzliche Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Ermächtigung des BKA zum Einsatz von heimlichen Überwachungsmaßnahmen zur Terrorismusabwehr. JuS 7:662–664
Schramm M, Jansen K (2008) Die Online-Durchsuchung im Lichte der Rechtsprechung. Jur. Info 1:1–7
Tschentscher A (2008) Das Grundrecht auf Computerschutz. AJP/PJA 4:383–393
Wiemers M (2016) Teilweise Verfassungswidrigkeit des BKA-Gesetzes. NVwZ 12:839–841
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lisa Schulz for supporting us in the research for this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forgó, N., Hawellek, C., Knoke, F., Stoklas, J. (2017). The Collection of Electronic Evidence in Germany: A Spotlight on Recent Legal Developments and Court Rulings. In: Corrales, M., Fenwick, M., Forgó, N. (eds) New Technology, Big Data and the Law. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5038-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5038-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5037-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5038-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)