Judgments
Federal Administrative Court buries data retention
According to the Federal Administrative Court, the storage of traffic and location data is not strictly limited to the purpose of protecting national security. photo
© Oliver Berg/dpa
The Federal Administrative Court has drawn a line under the years-long dispute over data retention. According to the judges, the current German regulation was unlawful.
Due to the legal uncertainties, the regulation had not been used since 2017. The Federal Administrative Court had temporarily suspended the legal proceedings and submitted questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of data retention with EU law.
ECJ: Do not save without reason
The ECJ decided in 2022 that the communication data of all citizens may not be stored without reason. Targeted and time-limited storage of data is possible in the event of a serious threat to national security. According to the ECJ, it may also be possible to retain IP addresses to combat serious crime. The Federal Administrative Court followed these guidelines in its decision published on Thursday.
According to this, the regulation in the Telecommunications Act for the storage of telephone numbers, IP addresses or the duration of connections “does not meet the requirements of EU law because no objective criteria are determined that establish a connection between the data to be stored and the goal pursued.” the court.
The storage of traffic and location data is not strictly limited to the purpose of protecting national security. Although IP addresses may be stored to combat serious crime and prevent serious threats to public security, this is not so clearly defined in the Telecommunications Act.
Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann said that with the court’s decision it was now finally clear that data retention in Germany was “entirely unlawful and therefore inapplicable”. “The current decisions are a clear order for us to quickly remove data retention from the law – and to further strengthen digital civil rights in our country,” said the FDP politician. He referred to the coalition agreement of the traffic light government, according to which relevant data should only be stored “legally certain and by judicial decision”.
Criticism from politics
In contrast, the Hessian Justice Minister Roman Poseck (CDU) emphasized that both the ECJ and the Federal Administrative Court had “explicitly” opened up scope for the storage of IP addresses in order to combat the most serious crimes. “For these areas, federal regulation is still possible and urgently necessary so that cases of terrorism and child abuse can be successfully combated. In these cases, data protection must not lead to the protection of perpetrators,” said Poseck.
Bavaria’s Justice Minister Georg Eisenreich also pointed out the limited scope for storing IP addresses. According to the CSU politician, these must be used promptly to protect children if there are indications of abuse. “In some cases, IP addresses are also the most important or even the only lead when tracking terrorists, arms traffickers and drug traffickers.”
Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) became much harsher in his tone and accused the Federal Justice Minister of “refusal to work at the expense of victims of child abuse.” The ECJ expressly allowed IP addresses to be secured to combat child pornography and sexual abuse. Nevertheless, the federal government remained inactive for a year. “Completely exaggerated data protection” apparently has more priority for Buschmann than child protection, said the CSU politician.