GFF and partners lodge constitutional complaint against surveillance by the Federal Intelligence Service (BND)
GFF along with its partner organizations has filed a lawsuit against a law that allows the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) [the Federal Intelligence Service, Germany’s foreign intelligence agency] to spy on foreign journalists. The complaint was filed before the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. The complaint is supported by the Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (the German Journalists‘ Union/dju), the Deutsche Journalisten-Verband (DJV) (German Federation of Journalists), the journalists’ network n-ost, netzwerk recherche (nr) (research network) and Reporter ohne Grenzen (ROG) (Reporters without Borders). The plaintiffs are investigative journalists and human rights activists from various countries.
Legal problem: ‘Strategic’ surveillance without specific grounds for suspicion
The lawsuit has been prompted by the new comprehensive surveillance powers granted to the BND by the amendment of 23 December 2016 to the BND law (Gesetz zur Ausland-Ausland-Fernmeldeaufklärung) (Act on Signals Intelligence Gathering in Germany of Foreigners Abroad). The amendment enables the BND to intercept communications without any specific grounds for doing so and to gather and process all content and traffic data. In other words: every e-mail, text message or telephone call sent or made by foreigners living abroad can be intercepted and used by the BND.
If you want to join our fight against surveillance, please support our work with your donation!
The conditions under which this surveillance may be carried out are much too vague and too broad in scope and there is no effective means of monitoring these surveillance measures. Unlike surveillance of communications within Germany, which fall under the Code of Criminal Procedure (e.g., regarding the surveillance of suspects in the context of organised crime), the BND does not need to have any concrete suspicion or any court order to engage in the strategic surveillance of foreigners abroad. Thus surveillance can be ordered merely for the purpose of obtaining “information of significance for foreign and security policy”.
Destroying trust between journalists and their sources
The new BND law destroys trust between journalists and their sources precisely in places where investigative journalism is particularly difficult. While it cannot be used for strategic surveillance of German or EU Institutions, it can otherwise target any group of people. So in principle anyone communicating in a foreign country can be targeted, including highly sensitive groups such as lawyers or journalists and their sources.
The plaintiffs are therefore mainly investigative journalists from various countries, including many renowned journalists, such as the winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize Khadija Ismayilova (from Azerbaijan), Raúl Olmos (from Mexico), Blaž Zgaga (from Slovenia) and Richard Norton-Taylor (from Great Britain). The plaintiffs also include the German human rights lawyer Michael Mörth, who is working in Guatemala, and the French human rights organisation Reporters Sans Frontières.
It is highly probable that the nature of their work makes their communications “interesting” for the BND and that their communication with colleagues and sources is affected by the law and that the information contained in it may be passed on by the BND to international intelligence services. This represents a direct threat for the plaintiffs and their informants and thus constitutes a risk for fundamental and human rights worldwide.
- You can find further details on our complaint and the plaintiffs in the FAQ.
- Find here the PDF version of the constitutional complaint (in German).
- The lawsuit is accompanied by a public campaign against the BND law.
You can contact us at email@example.com.
The Society for Civil Rights lodged a constitutional complaint against BND surveillance under the so-called G 10 at the end of 2016; this is a legal provision related to the surveillance of foreigners abroad currently under dispute.