Core area of ​​private life

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The core area of private life under German law the part of privacy and intimacy , the opposite of a human government is completely protected procedures.

Eleven judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court

The idea that there is a sphere of freedom into which the state may not enter under any circumstances was first expressed by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1957 in the so-called Elfes judgment . The court ruled at the time that “there is a last inviolable area of ​​human freedom that is beyond the reach of all public authority. A law that would interfere with it could never be part of the 'constitutional order'; it would have to be declared null and void by the Federal Constitutional Court. ” In German law, the existence of this core area is generally recognized today.

According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, whether a matter can be assigned to the core area depends, among other things, on whether its content has a highly personal character and to what extent and in what way it affects the sphere of others or the interests of the community. It is also important whether the person concerned wants to keep the facts secret or not.

If a matter belongs to the core area of ​​private life, the state and its organs may not intervene in this area under any circumstances. This also applies when the overriding interests of other people or the general public are at stake. Information that has been obtained through a violation of the core area is subject to a prohibition on the use of evidence .

The Federal Constitutional Court uses the legal figure of the inviolable core area of ​​private life in a large number of decisions in different contexts and functions. On the one hand, the concept of the core area serves to solve the problem of the legislature's commitment to fundamental rights. On the other hand, it should ensure effective protection of fundamental rights against open and secret information gathering. In addition, the court uses this term to limit the protection of individual basic rights, such as artistic freedom, if they come into conflict with general personal rights . In doing so, the court uses the core area concept to specify both human dignity and the essential content guarantee and to make these two fundamental limits of state power manageable for constitutional application.

Despite this diverse use and its considerable importance, it has remained unclear to this day how the legal concept of the core area of ​​private life is to be precisely defined and justified under constitutional law. Against this background, there are voices in jurisprudence who assume that there is no area of ​​human freedom that is absolutely protected.

Individual cases

Depending on the content of the conversation or self-talk, the spoken word can be included in the core area of ​​private life. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case. This must be taken into account , for example, with telecommunications monitoring and acoustic living space monitoring.

Files stored in an information technology system can fall under the core area, depending on their content. This is important for the so-called online search , in which the hard drive of a PC is copied and viewed without the knowledge of the person concerned.

literature

  • Manfred Baldus : The core area of ​​private life - absolutely protected, but open to consideration. In: JZ . 2008, pp. 218-227.
  • Ilmer Dammann: The core area of ​​private life. For the protection of human dignity and essential content in the area of ​​fundamental freedoms. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-428-13488-5 ( Publications on Public Law 1180) (At the same time: Bielefeld, Univ., Diss., 2010).
  • Michael Lindemann: The protection of the core area of ​​private life in criminal proceedings. In: Legal review. 2006, ISSN  0022-6920 , pp. 191-198.
  • Maximilian Warntjen: Secret coercive measures and the core area of ​​private life. A conception following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on acoustic living space surveillance, BVerfGE 109, 279. Nomos, Baden-Baden [u. a.] 2007, ISBN 978-3-8329-2759-2 ( Studies on Criminal Law 13) (At the same time: Göttingen, Univ., Diss., 2006–2007).
  • Johannes M. Barrot: The core area of ​​private life, at the same time a contribution to the dogmatic understanding of Art. 2 Para. 1 GG i. V. m. Art. 1 para. 1 GG. Nomos Verlagsges.MBH + Co, 03/2012, ISBN 9783832973636 , studies on public law 11

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of January 16, 1957, Az. 1 BvR 253/56, BVerfGE 6, 32 41.
  2. ↑ BVerfG, decision of September 14, 1989, Az. 2 BvR 1062/87, BVerfGE 80, 367 to 383.
  3. ↑ See in detail I. Dammann, Core Area of ​​Private Life , Berlin 2011.
  4. ↑ BVerfG, decision of June 13, 2007, Az. 1 BvR 1783/05, BVerfGE 119, 1 to 59.
  5. ↑ Cf. I. Dammann, Core Area of ​​Private Life , Berlin 2011.
  6. ↑ BVerfG, decision of January 31, 1973, Az. 2 BvR 454/71, BVerfGE 34, 238 to 251.

Web links