Broadcasting fee: According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the fee is constitutional

Affected parties can now claim an exemption from the second contribution – in some cases, even retroactively. The legislator must remedy this situation by the end of June 2020 at the latest. In the opposite case, the broadcasting fee introduced in 2013 is compatible with the Basic Law. (Az 1 BvR 1675/16 u.a.)

Crucial is the offer of a public service broadcasting, said the vice president of the court Ferdinand Kirchhof. "The national broadcast of programs gives everyone in Germany the realistic opportunity to receive them." This justifies an additional financial burden. If the individual has a receiver or does not want to use the offers, then play no role.

The intendant of ARD and ZDF welcomes the broadcast contribution

The directors of ARD and ZDF welcomed the verdict. It was "a very good verdict," said ARD's current president, Ulrich Wilhelm, on Wednesday after the Karlsruhe verdict. This reinforces the role of public service broadcasting. Constitutional judges would have written to broadcasters, but also to ensure responsible journalism.

Thomas Bellut, director of the ZDF, spoke of a "good day" for public service broadcasting in Germany. However, the court also stated that the quality of service offered by broadcasters was crucial. The verdict therefore encourages the ZDF to continue working seriously.

Broadcasting fee has been charged per apartment since 2013

Private persons currently pay EUR 17.50 per month for their apartment. The amount of this contribution, according to Kirchhof considering nearly 90 programs broadcast nationwide is also appropriate.

For each apartment, the broadcast fees have been billed since 2013 – regardless of how many people live there and if there is even a TV or radio. The plaintiffs find the new system unfair. Among other things, they are disturbed by the fact that the net result of a person is more heavily burdened than someone who lives with multiple people in a shared flat. However, according to the judgment, this unequal treatment is based on "factual grounds that still meet the constitutional requirements."

"Because he can only use the radio once"

First Senate judges also consider it justifiable to post in housing to socialize. Because the broadcast is usually used there. Legislators have a lot of room here.

The fact that someone with two or more residences should pay more than one contribution, however, goes too far for constitutional justices. "Because he can only use the radio once," Kirchhof said. Nor can the regulation be justified by administrative simplification.

Remains officially in effect

Until a new solution is found, it remains formally in force. Affected persons may request an exemption until that date. Retroactively, this only works if you have already filed an objection to the contribution decision and have not yet decided it.

The old broadcast fee was based on the number of units present in the household. This required controls. The model has also reached its limits because more and more people are using public service offerings on the Internet.

Broadcasting contribution is the most important source of revenue for ARD and ZDF

Among applicants in Karlsruhe Each rental car costs a third contribution. Depending on the number of employees, the company must also pay dues for each location. Judges think this is constitutional: companies derive an economic benefit from the programs because they can use it to inform and entertain employees and customers. In the car, for example, run the traffic. For rental cars, radio is also a price factor. Sixt benefits.

Sixt regrets the decision

Compared to FOCUS Online Sixt regrets the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the broadcasting contribution. "Unfortunately, the Court did not follow our legal opinion that the reform of broadcasting financing that came into effect in 2013 in the field of permanent establishments and commercial vehicles is subject to errors", states the communicated. "In any case, Sixt kept his word and brought his legal opinion to all levels up to the highest German court."

Relief to secondary users, contractors continue to pay

Secondary users, the Federal Constitutional Court opposes the contribution: pay twice. For entrepreneurs, however, everything remains unchanged: we will continue to ask them to pay.

For business owners, the verdict is not good. "Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, will continue to be asked to pay," said Rostock's lawyer, Gunnar Roloff, of the Ecovis consulting firm in Rostock. The amount of circulation that a company must pay depends on the number of business premises, employees and motor vehicles.

The fact that the same number of employees has different workloads depends on the number of workstations distributed to Judge Constitutional Court employees, no violation of the principle of equality. The state legislatures may make the obligation to contribute to both the permanent establishment, where the use of broadcasting takes place, as well as to the number of employees of the 39 – a permanent establishment – here there is a staggering degressive.

Legislators are willing to endure. "To calculate the audiovisual fee, it does not take the number of employees of a company, but the number of employees in a permanent establishment," says Roloff,

Bitter, says Roloff, the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court for commercial vehicles, "In the future too, the contractor must pay one-third of the broadcast fee for each approved motor vehicle." As before, however, a motor vehicle for each contributing entrepreneurial business remains free of contributions.

Last word uttered

Broadcasting contribution is the most important source of revenue for ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio. In 2017, just under eight billion euros came together. About 90% of this money comes from individuals.

Numerous complaints were filed against the contribution, most of them unsuccessful. For example, the Federal Administrative Court has repeatedly confirmed the essential points model. The Constitutional Courts of Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate also stated that the broadcasting contribution was legal. With the judgment of Karlsruhe is now the last word spoken in the long dispute.

In the video: These countries show that it goes without broadcasting contribution