I'm not really a German constitutional scholar but I study German law and am somewhat specialized in constitutional and international law.
I think the questions you are touching upon are very interesting. There are definitely a lot of "positive rights" in the German constitution, that is to say rights, that do not simply protect an individual from action by the state but actually require the state to act in a certain way. That being said, the German Constitutional Court (GCC) is very careful not to "over-interpret" the constitution in such a way that the state only has one legal way of handling an issue, which is especially true in these constellations of so called Schutzpflichtverletzungen (violations of the duty to protect).
Regarding the ruling issued today this explicitly only concerns "Abwehrrechte" (rights against actions by the state). Two key provisions from the judgement read:
>Der Schutz der einzelnen Grundrechte kann sich im Inland und Ausland unterscheiden. (The protection of fundamental rights can differ regarding their application inside or outside German sovereignty.)
>Jedenfalls der Schutz des Art. 10 Abs. 1 und des Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG als Abwehrrechte gegenüber einer Telekommunikationsüberwachung erstreckt sich auch auf Ausländer im Ausland. (At least the protection of Art. 10 I and Art. 5 I 2 GG as rights __against actions by the state__ in relation to the Surveillance of Telecommunication also protects foreigners outside German territory)
(translations very roughly by me)
This is more speculative but this shows in my opinion that the Court sees the problem you're referring to and is very careful in stating that there can be differences between inside and outside jurisdiction AND that the current judgement only concerns Abwehrrechte against the state.