1. Skip to content
  2. Skip to main menu
  3. Skip to more DW sites
TerrorismGermany

Germany: Anti-terror data mining ruled unconstitutional

December 11, 2020

Powers granted in 2015 that gave systematic access to an anti-terror database are partially illegal and are now void, says Germany's Constitutional Court.

Police take computers seized during a raid on a mosque
Germany's constitutional court has ruled that widespread police access to an anti-terror database is illegalImage: Getty Images/T. Lohnes

Germany's highest court ruled Friday that a law that gave systematic access by security agencies to a centralized anti-terror database is partially illegal

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe said that the widespread use of the stored personal data had been disproportionate.

Judges said the law must now be revised.

The anti-terror database was set up in 2007 by the Federal Criminal Police (BKA) and was later shared with police authorities and intelligence services of Germany's federal and state governments.

The joint tool is intended to allow the rapid exchange of information to help prevent Islamist terrorist attacks.

Despite the ruling, judges said law enforcement agencies can still use the database to gather information about international terrorism and to prevent domestic atrocities.

Earlier this year, the same court ruled that German police have too much access to personal online data.

Germany's federal police share a database with intelligence agencies and police forces around the countryImage: picture-alliance/dpa/I. Scheuplein

Second court judgment

The court had already ruled in 2013 that the database was lawful but demanded the law be revised to prevent several unconstitutional parts.

Friday's ruling, however, focused on a provision introduced during the earlier reform, specifically a paragraph that permitted the "extended project-related use of data."

The measure allowed the systematic use of search queries to establish cross-connections between stored data in order to gain new insights about suspects.

For this to be allowed, there must be a "solid suspicion" for criminal prosecution and only then can a "condensed factual record" be created.

The plaintiff in the latest case was the same as in the first ruling, a retired judge.

The court backed his fundamental right to informational self-determination.

In Germany, this is defined as "the authority of the individual to decide himself, on the basis of the idea of self-determination, when and within what limits information about his private life should be communicated to others."

mm/rt (dpa, AFP)

Skip next section Explore more
Skip next section DW's Top Story

DW's Top Story

Skip next section More stories from DW