[ad_1]
This could be the end of a long-standing dispute: the Federal Constitutional Court decides Wednesday whether the broadcast contribution in its current form is legal or not. The central question is two questions: First, the highest German court must determine if the contribution is not a tax. If that were the case, the countries that would establish the state broadcasting agreement would have no legislative powers.
Secondly, it must be specified if it is permitted to deduct the contribution of € 17.50 per household or apartment per month – and no longer as before the reform in 2013 by type and number of appliances. For companies, the number of employees, permanent establishments and company cars has been decisive ever since. The broadcasting contribution is the most important source of revenue for ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio. They take each year around eight billion euros.
The new device-independent numbering model was seen by public broadcasters in the era of smart computers and television and late reform. The new regulation, however, triggered a veritable avalanche of lawsuits against the criticism of the "compulsory levy" before the administrative courts. The Constitutional Courts of Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate have also ruled – and have so far stated that the contribution was legal, as has the Federal Administrative Court on several occasions. Three individuals and the car rental company Sixt have now moved to the Federal Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe. They view the contribution as a tax and defend themselves against what they see as an unwarranted burden.
What is right, what needs to be changed?
The second owners would be at a disadvantage and would pay twice for listening or watching TV. One of the three private plaintiffs had pleaded at the May 16 hearing and asked for a personal contribution. Constitutional judges also worked intensely on the question of whether it was fair, for example, that two people living in a two-income apartment pay exactly as much as a single mother; if students from a workgroup can share the contribution – and a single acting single has to wear it alone.
Even the Sixt commercial plaintiff defends against the fact that, for example, for private vehicles is not due. The contribution raises "problems of a fair burden", said the President of the First Senate, Ferdinand Kirchhof, during the trial and asked critical questions.
Corrections to the contribution model could thus be appealed to the highest court. However, constitutional judges did not give way to a general reprimand and criticism of the public law offer during the trial. This was not the subject of the proceedings, Kirchhof had pointed out and asked one of the private plaintiffs and longtime contributors to be brief. Reasons of public law show that there is at least one television in almost every home.
Incidentally, a claim for bias against Kirchhof was dismissed three weeks before the trial. The applicants for refusal did not want to have co-decision on the broadcasting contribution: Kirchhof's brother and former Constitutional Judge Paul Kirchhof had 2010 for ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio issued an opinion on the tax then not yet applied. And has come to the conclusion that it is constitutional. Anika von Greve-Dierfeld dpa
Source link
