What is 27 1 6

The law on the implementation of representative statistics of the population and working life (microcensus) of March 16, 1957 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 213) - microcensus law - determined in the version of the law of December 5, 1960 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 213), which is authoritative for the present procedure. I p. 873) including the following:
    § 1
    Within the scope of this law, statistics of the population and working life on a representative basis (microcensus) are carried out quarterly as federal statistics, once a year with a selection rate of 1 per hundred and three times a year with a selection rate of 0, within the scope of this law, 1 per hundred of the population.
    The following facts are recorded for these statistics:
    1.Number and names of the people belonging to the household, their gender, age, position on the head of the household, marital status, number of children, nationality, displaced (refugee) status, residence and changes of residence, physical disability and its causes, agricultural land used by the household;
    2. Participation or non-participation in employment and professional life, in particular employment and unemployment, occupation, place of work, employed workers, working hours and insurance coverage;
    3. Vacation and recreational travel, income situation, childcare for employed mothers. These facts are raised only once during the period of validity of this law.
The provision of § 2 No. 3 is based on Art. 1, Paragraph 2, No. 2 of the Act amending the Act on the Implementation of Representative Statistics on Population and Working Life (Microcensus) of December 5, 1960 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 873 ) has been inserted.
The law on statistics for federal purposes of September 3, 1953 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 1314) - StatG - applied to this survey. Afterwards there was an obligation to answer the questions asked (§ 10 Abs. 1 StatG). Anyone who intentionally or negligently failed to comply with this obligation committed an administrative offense that could be punished with a fine of up to ten thousand Deutsche Mark (Section 14 StatG).
B. - I.
1. The person affected by the initial proceedings lives in an area that has been determined using a statistical-mathematical method and whose all residents are to be questioned in accordance with the Microcensus Act. She refused to receive the representatives of the Bavarian State Statistical Office and to answer all 60 questions that were recorded in a white questionnaire and a yellow supplementary questionnaire. At the request of the Bavarian State Statistical Office, the Fürstenfeldbruck District Office then imposed a fine of DM 100 on them in accordance with Section 14 of the StatG. The person concerned applied for a court decision. By resolution of October 30, 1963 - Gs 168/63 - the Fürstenfeldbruck District Court suspended the matter and submitted it to the Federal Constitutional Court for a decision on whether Article 1, Paragraph 2, No. 2 of the Amendment Act of December 5, 1960 is compatible with the Basic Law .
2. In support of the submission, the district court stated: The provision of Art. 1, Paragraph 2, No. 2 of the Amendment Act of December 5, 1960 contradicts Art. 1 and Art Recreational trips are required. Answering the questions about vacation and recreational trips contained in paragraph 48 of the white questionnaire and paragraphs 1 to 6 of the yellow supplementary questionnaire is mandatory. Such questions about the undertaking of a vacation trip, its duration and its destination with precise details of the place and the means of transport violated the privacy of the respondents. In the pending fine proceedings, it is important to determine the amount of the fine whether or not there was an obligation to answer all points in the two questionnaires.
3. The questions to be answered by the person concerned in the main proceedings on the offense of "holiday and recreational travel" were:
    Who has a vacation and recreational trip of 5 and moreDays, even if taken in connection with a business trip,
    a) in the period from October 1, 1961 to September 30, 1962 and / or
    Which household members took part in a trip?
    What was the trip like? (Single [private] trip, single package tour, group trip, shipping)
    When did the trip start and how long did it take?
    Where was the predominant stay (in Germany or abroad)? (In Germany: details of the place of residence; abroad: details of the country visited)
    Which means of transport were mainly used on the outward and return journey?
    Which type of accommodation was mainly used?
    (Accommodation, private accommodation against payment, accommodation without payment (relatives, acquaintances), health resort and sanatorium, holiday and recreation home, children's home, camping and tent site, youth hostel).
23 II.  
The Federal Minister of the Interior considers the regulation submitted for examination to be constitutional.
A survey would at most violate the intimate sphere protected by Article 1, Paragraph 1, Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law if its scope went beyond what was covered by a legitimate purpose of the survey or if its result was used for purposes other than statistical purposes. If the state's interest outweighs that of the individual in the freedom from interference in his area, in particular the right to free development of the personality is not violated.
There was a particular public interest in the survey on vacation and recreational travel. In contrast, the interference in the privacy of the person concerned associated with the survey was minimal.
C. - I.
Submission is permitted.
1. The district court has sufficiently demonstrated the relevance of the decision. From the context of the order for reference it can be inferred that the court intends to impose a lower fine in the event of the unconstitutionality of the norm submitted for examination than in the case of its constitutionality.
2. Section 2 No. 3 of the Microcensus Act inserted by Art. 1, Paragraph 2, No. 2 of the law of December 5, 1960, can only be described in terms of content and legal content in terms of "vacation and recreational travel" Record in connection with Section 1 of the Microcensus Act, which stipulates the type of survey for a microcensus (representative survey) for this survey. This means that this provision must also be checked for its compatibility with the Basic Law to the extent that, because of this close connection, the question of the validity of Section 2 No. 3 of the Act cannot be answered without taking into account the type of survey (cf. BVerfGE 3, 208 [211]; 15, 80 [101]). In its order for reference, the district court did not explicitly refer to the provision of Section 1 of the Microcensus Act. However, this does not prevent the Federal Constitutional Court from considering this provision to the extent described as submitted for examination (BVerfGE 12, 151 [163]) and from defining the legal question posed in the submission more precisely to the effect that § 1 and § 2 No. 3 of the Microcensus Act are to be checked for their compatibility with the Basic Law, insofar as it has been determined that the facts "vacation and recreational trips" are recorded on a representative basis for the statistics arranged in Section 1 of the Act.
The representative survey ordered on the offense of "vacation and recreational travel" did not violate Article 1, Paragraph 1 and Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law or any other provisions of the Basic Law.
1. a) According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, human dignity is inviolable and must be respected and protected by all state power.
In the value system of the Basic Law, human dignity is the highest value (BVerfGE 6, 32 [41]). Like all provisions of the Basic Law, this commitment to human dignity also dominates Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The state may not violate human dignity by any measure, not even by a law, or otherwise affect the essence of the freedom of the person beyond the limits set out in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The Basic Law thus grants the individual citizen an inviolable area of ​​private life that is beyond the influence of public authority (BVerfGE 6, 32 [41], 389 [433]).
b) In the light of this image of man, people in the community have a claim to social value and respect. It is contrary to human dignity to make people a mere object in the state (cf. BVerfGE 5, 85 [204]; 7, 198 [205]). It would be incompatible with human dignity if the state could claim the right to compulsorily register and catalog people in their entire personality, be it in the anonymity of a statistical survey, and thus make them one thing to deal with, which is accessible to an inventory in every respect.
The state is also denied such penetration into the personality area through a comprehensive insight into the personal circumstances of its citizens because the individual must have an "inner space" in which he "owns himself" for the sake of the free and self-responsible development of his personality. and "in which he can withdraw, to which the environment has no access, in which one is left in peace and enjoys a right to solitude" (Wintrich, Die Problematik der Grundrechte, 1957, p. 15 f .; cf. also Dürig in Maunz-Dürig, GG 2nd edition, No. 37 to Art. 1). In these BeUnder certain circumstances, the state can already intervene through an - albeit assessment-neutral - inspection, which can inhibit the free development of the personality through the psychological pressure of public sympathy.
c) However, not every statistical survey of personality and life data violates the human personality in its dignity or affects its right to self-determination in the innermost area of ​​life. As a community-related and community-bound citizen (cf. BVerfGE 4, 7 [15, 16]; 7, 198 [205]; 24, 119 [144]) everyone must have the necessity of statistical surveys about themselves to a certain extent, such as in a census , accept it as a precondition for state action to be planned.
A statistical survey of the person can therefore be perceived as degrading and as a threat to the right to self-determination, where it encompasses the area of ​​human life of its own, which is inherently secret, and thus also declares this inner area to be statistically accessible and in need of exploration. In this respect, there are also barriers for the state of modern industrial society from administrative "depersonalization". On the other hand, where the statistical survey is only linked to the behavior of the human being in the outside world, the human personality is usually not yet "grasped" by it in its inviolable area of ​​private life. This applies in any case if this information loses its personality reference due to the anonymity of its evaluation. The prerequisite is that anonymity is adequately secured. In the present case, it is guaranteed by the prohibition on the publication of individual information (§ 12 Paragraph 4 StatG) as well as by the fact that the person entitled to information is obliged to keep the information confidential under threat of punishment (§§ 12 Paragraph 1 Clause 1, 13 StatG) that the statutory duties of assistance and notification to the tax offices do not apply to him (Section 12, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 StatG) and that the responsible authorities and agencies also include their superior serviceare not allowed to pass on any individual information via official channels unless they have been expressly authorized to do so by law (Section 12 (2) StatG).
d) According to this, the survey on vacation and recreational trips did not violate Article 1, Paragraph 1, Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
This survey concerned an area of ​​private life. However, it did not force the interviewee to disclose his intimate sphere, nor did it give the state insight into individual relationships that are not accessible to the outside world and are therefore inherently "secret". All information on the destination and duration of the trip, the type of accommodation and the means of transport used could be determined without a survey, albeit with considerably greater difficulty. They thus did not belong to the innermost (intimate) area in which the state could not intervene even by surveying for statistical purposes without violating human dignity and the individual's right to self-determination.
2. Also with regard to the rule of law, there are no constitutional concerns about the survey. In particular, neither the requirement of standard clarity (cf. BVerfGE 20, 150 [158 f.]; 21, 245 [261]) nor the principle of proportionality (cf. BVerfGE 17, 306 [313]; 19, 342 [348 f.]) ]) injured.
a) § 2 No. 3 of the law did not lack the constitutionally required clarity of norms in its offense "vacation and recreational travel". In the description of the facts and their connection with the other facts that were to be covered by the statistical survey according to the law, the will of the legislature was sufficiently clearly expressed that the most complete information possible should be required in their pre-defined social reference. The resulting question could thus be recognized from the legal norms for both the citizen and the state administrations involved in the implementation.
b) After the official justification, the documents should be aboutgive vacation and recreational travel information about the economic and sociological significance of such travel and the means of transport used. It was also intended to provide clues for checking the balance of payments data for travel (BTDrucks. III / 1925 Annex 1 to B). With the increasing importance of tourism, the state is dependent on knowledge of the resulting shift in consumption, the structural change in the accommodation sector, the differences in travel frequency within the national territory and in cross-border traffic in order to fulfill its currency, economic, social and transport policy tasks. The questioning about the facts of "vacation and recreational travel" was in the service of these tasks and in any case was not a clearly unsuitable means of obtaining this information.
Taking into account the fact that even the refusal to provide information by a few respondents could call the result of the representative survey into question, it ultimately did not burden the individual excessively that the law in connection with § 10 Paragraph 1, § 14 StatG Answering the questions under threat of sanction. There was also no reason to fear that the information would be misused for third-party purposes, since the anonymity of their analysis was adequately guaranteed by Section 12, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and Section 13 of the StatG.
3. Finally, there are also no constitutional objections to the type of survey of a representative survey with a sample rate of 1% of the total population of the Federal Republic of Germany, as stipulated in § 1 of the law.
A representative survey for statistical purposes, in which only the group of people determined by a "random procedure" is affected by the obligation to provide information, in particular does not violate the principle of equality. The lawmaker is prohibited by the principle of equality from unequal treatment of citizens only where, in compliance with the requirement ofJustice, a reasonable reason for the legal differentiation arising from the nature of the matter or otherwise objectively obvious cannot be found, i.e. the regulation must be described as arbitrary (so inter alia BVerfGE 1, 264 [276]; 18, 121 [124]) . For this reason, the legislature also has a wide range of design options when determining the group of people for whom the statutory regulation is to apply (cf. BVerfGE 9, 20 [32]; 11, 245 [253]; 17, 1 [33]; 23, 12 [28]).
These limits were not exceeded by Section 1 of the Microcensus Act. The different, randomly dependent burden on citizens through the statistical sample survey results from the peculiarity of such a representative survey. The decision of the legislature for this representative survey can also be based on factually plausible reasons instead of a survey of the general population. In relation to an overall survey, the representative survey enables cost-saving, short-term information to be provided to the state while only a small part of the population is burdened by the survey.
45 Dr. Müller, Dr. Stein, Dr. Haager, Rupp-v.Brünneck, Dr. Böhmer, Dr. Brox, Dr. Zeidler © 1994-2020 The Case Law (DFR).