4 ms·

They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling (starts with "Das Urteil" in German). The court also detailed th

• tom_mellior 7y ago
  > They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling The first sentence of the ruling says that the paintiff's rights under articles 1 and 2 were affected, but that doesn't mean that those articles are the only relevant parts of the Grundgesetz. > The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Yes, I've had the idea of looking at that myself. That references at least articles 1, 2, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 59, 93 GG, as well as at least the European Convention on Human Rights, the Treaty on European Union, and GDPR. If the OP's point was that this ruling follows directly from "two or three articles" of the Grundgesetz, the OP was wrong -- even if speaking figuratively. The actual reasoning is based on much more than that, including EU law. Unsurprisingly, the issue is much more complex than the OP made it out to be, otherwise it never would have made it past the appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof anyway.