Published on 15 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 8032/25
GESELLSCHAFT FUR FREIHEITSRECHTE E.V. against Germany
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 29 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern a regime of monitoring and surveillance of foreign communications by the Federal Intelligence Service. The regime comprises of four elements, namely the strategic monitoring and bulk interception of foreign communications (strategische Ausland‑Fernmeldeaufklärung), the retention of intercepted communications data, the monitoring of foreign communications on behalf of foreign intelligence services and the transmission of intercepted material to them, and Computer Network Exploitation (Online-Durchsuchung). The surveillance regime is regulated by the Act on the Federal Intelligence Service (Gesetz über den Bundesnachrichtendienst).
The applicants’ constitutional complaint against the legal foundation of the surveillance regime was not admitted by the Federal Constitutional Court for adjudication by decisions of 19 September 2023 (1 BvR 2390/22) and 5 November 2024 (1 BvR 1820/23).
The first applicant is a German association focussed on strategic litigation in the area, among others, of state surveillance. The second applicant is a German association defending freedom of the press. The third applicant is a German national active in the field of migrant and human rights.
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention against the surveillance regime in so far it is applicable to data of German nationals and associations, namely the interception, retention and examination of communications data pursuant to section 26 of the Act on the Federal Intelligence Service. They argue that the data processing and retention was neither based on a sufficient legal basis nor necessary in a democratic society. The applicants further claim that they did not have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about a breach of their Convention right by the impugned surveillance regime.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the alleged interference based on the surveillance regime, which the applicants complain about in the present case, occur within the jurisdiction of Germany?
2. Can the applicants claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (compare, inter alia, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 171, ECHR 2015; Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden [GC], no. 35252/08, § 167, 25 May 2021; and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 262, 11 January 2022)?
3. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Have the applicants complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Does the interception, examination and retention of “traffic data” by the Federal Intelligence Service constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (compare Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, §§ 361, 363-4, 25 May 2021 and Centrum för rättvisa, cited above, §§ 275, 277-8)?
Which categories of data are considered “traffic data” (Verkehrsdaten) under section 26 § 1 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act? Does the term “traffic data” refer to communications data stemming from person-to-person telecommunications or does it include meta data stemming from other forms of communications, such as messenger applications, emails and machine‑to‑machine communications?
Which categories of data are considered “data generated in the course of automated information exchange between IT-systems that has no direct connection to a specific human communication process” (Daten, die im Rahmen des automatisierten Informationsaustausches zwischen informationstechnischen Systemen ohne unmittelbaren Bezug zu einem konkreten menschlichen Kommunikationsvorgang anfallen) under section 26 § 3 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act? Does that data include data such as automated backups, synchronisation with cloud servers, etc.?
Is data that has been “automatically rendered unrecognisable” (automatisiert unkenntlich gemacht) under section 26 § 3 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act considered anonymised or pseudonymised? Is this data still considered personal data?
6. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Did the applicant have an “arguable claim” that there had been a violation of their rights under Article 13 read in conjunction with Articles 8 or 10 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
8032/25
Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. v. Germany
GESELLSCHAFT FÜR FREIHEITSRECHTE E.V.
Berlin
German
Matthias BÄCKER
2.
8069/25
Reporter ohne Grenzen e.V. v. Germany
REPORTER OHNE GRENZEN E.V.
Berlin
German
Matthias BÄCKER
3.
8149/25
Schamberger v. Germany
Kerem SCHAMBERGER
1986
Munich
German
Matthias BÄCKER