Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt and requires no further clarification – including under the standards of the acte claire case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ, judgment of 6 October 1982, Case C-283/81, C.I.L.F.I.T., ECR 1982, p. 3415 paras. 16 et seq.) – that the Counter-Terrorism Database Act and the activities carried out by the public security agencies and intelligence services on that basis are no implementation of Union law within the meaning of Art. 51 sec. 1 sentence 1 EUCFR. With regard to the Data Privacy Directive, this already follows from Art. 3 sec. 2 of Directive 95/46/EC, which makes an express exception for data processing concerning public security, state security, and the activities of the state in areas of criminal law. The establishment and organisation of the counter-terrorism database are also not otherwise governed by Union law. In particular, there is no provision of Union law that obliges the Federal Republic of Germany to establish such a database, impedes it from doing so, or prescribes anything about the content of such a database. Rather, the Counter-Terrorism Database Act pursues nationally defined objectives that can only indirectly affect the functioning of legal relationships governed by Union law; this is insufficient for a review according to the fundamental rights under Union law (cf. ECJ, judgment of 18 December 1997, C-309/96, Annibaldi, ECR 1997, p. I-7493 para. 22). Therefore any applicability of fundamental rights under Union law is excluded from the outset. It follows directly from the wording of Art. 51 sec. 2 EUCFR and from Art. 6 sec. 1 of the Treaty on European Union that the Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the competences of the Union, and that it neither establishes new powers or tasks for the Union, nor modifies the powers and tasks defined in the Treaties (cf. also ECJ, judgment of 15 November 2011, C-256/11, Dereci et al., para. 71; ECJ, judgment of 8 November 2012, C-40/11, Iida, para. 78; ECJ, judgment of 27 November 2012, C-370/12, Pringle, paras. 179 and 180).