Diego Naranjo (@diegonaranjo.bsky.social)

Rules on preventative and criminal procedural (source) telecommunications surveillance and criminal procedural remote searches are constitutional for the most part In orders published today, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rendered its decision on two constitutional complaints concerning statutory authorisations in (preventative) police law and criminal procedural law. With their constitutional complaint in the proceedings 1 BvR 2466/19 (Trojan I), the complainants challenge the statutory authorisation for (source) telecommunications surveillance in police law contained in § 20c of the North Rhine-Westphalia Police Act (Polizeigesetz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen – PolG NRW); in the proceedings 1 BvR 180/23 (Trojan II), they challenge the statutory authorisations for source telecommunications surveillance and remote searches in criminal procedural law contained in § 100a(1) second and third sentence and § 100b(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – StPO). To a large extent, the constitutional complaints are already inadmissible. For the most part, the complainants do not demonstrate the possibility of a violation of fundamental rights in a sufficiently substantiated manner. To the extent that the constitutional complaints are admissible, they are only partially successful. In its orders, the Senate held: The provisions of the North Rhine-Westphalia Police Act, which were admissibly challenged, are compatible with the Basic Law in their entirety. The challenged provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional in part. Source telecommunications surveillance for the investigation of criminal acts which only carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years or less is not proportionate in the strict sense and was therefore declared void by the Senate. The statutory authorisation for remote searches, which (also) authorises an interference with the right to privacy of telecommunications protected by Art. 10(1) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG), does not satisfy the requirement that the affected fundamental right be expressly specified (Zitiergebot) and is therefore incompatible with the Basic Law. However, this provision will continue to apply until the legislator adopts a new provision. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2025/bvg25-069.html