(§§ 6 et seq. of the Law on the Scrutiny of Elections) the preconditions under which the proceedings of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections are held in public. If an oral hearing is not waived, the hearing takes place in public. According to § 10.1 of the Law on the Scrutiny of Elections, the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections deliberates in secret on the result of the oral hearing. According to the system of the Act, this applies in the same way if an oral hearing is waived. No constitutional aspects are evident which might oblige the legislature to enact any different regulation when legislating on the scrutiny of elections (Article 41.3 of the Basic Law). 3. The complaint of the complainant re 2. that the resolution of the German Bundestag of 14 December 2006 had allegedly not effectively come into being for a lack of a quorum is also unsuccessful. The German Bundestag decides with a simple majority on the recommendation for a resolution of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections (§ 13.1 sentence 1 of the Law on the Scrutiny of Elections). According to § 45.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag, the Bundestag is quorate if more than half of its members are present in the plenary. The Bundestag is regarded as being quorate regardless of the number of its members present until it is found to not be quorate in the proceedings prescribed in § 45.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag. This provision does not come up against any constitutional reservations (see BVerfGE 44, 308 (314 et seq.) on the provisions of § 49.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag, old version, the content of which is largely identical). 103 As is shown by the record of the session, the German Bundestag unanimously accepted the resolution recommendation of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections on 14 December 2006 (see Minutes of plenary proceedings 16/73, Stenographic Record p. 7259 B). It cannot be derived from the minutes how many delegates were present in the house when the ballot was held. There is no record that it had been doubted, or indeed ascertained, whether the German Bundestag was quorate. There is hence no indication that the Bundestag was not quorate. 104 II. 1. In the context of a complaint requesting the scrutiny of an election according to § 13 no. 3 and § 48 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the Federal Constitutional Court has not only to guarantee compliance by the competent election bodies and the German Bundestag with the provisions of federal election law, but also to review whether the provisions of the Federal Electoral Act comply with the requirements of the constitution (see BVerfGE 16, 130 (135-136); BVerfG, judgment of the Second Senate of 3 July 2008 – 2 BvC 1/07, 7/07 –, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2008, p. 991 (992)). This examination also covers the validity of legal ordinances. 105 2. The deployment of computer-controlled voting machines is in particular to be reviewed against the standard of the public nature of elections (Article 38 in conjunction with Article 20.1 and 20.2 of the Basic Law). 106 22/37