Broadcasting fee

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The broadcast contribution since 2013, the model for the financing of public service broadcasters in Germany . These are according Rundfunkstaatsvertrag in public order act. The ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio Contribution Service is responsible for the administration of the broadcasting fees ; previously this central point was called the fee collection center of the public broadcasting corporations in the Federal Republic of Germany , abbreviated to GEZ. The radio license fee at that time was sometimes referred to colloquially as the "GEZ fee", which the GEZ protested against.

With the premium income of 8.009 billion euros in 2018, 22 television, 67 radio stations and a large number of online platforms with a total of more than 25,000 permanent employees were financed, as well as the supervisory authorities for private broadcasting ( state media authorities ). The German wave is, however, directly funded by taxpayers' money.

The obligation to pay results from the State Treaty on Broadcasting Contribution, which has been declared to be applicable law in the respective federal state through the consent laws of all 16 state parliaments . The determination of the amount of the contributions and their distribution are regulated in the Interstate Broadcasting Agreement (RFinStV). First of all, the commission to determine the financial needs of the broadcasting corporations (KEF) determines the amount that the broadcasters need for the protection of existing buildings and the further development, which according to the Federal Constitutional Court should be guaranteed. The Prime Minister's Conference then determines the amount of the contributions. A change in the broadcasting fee requires the approval of all state parliaments.

story

Early history of the license fee

Advertisement for the license fee in the yearbook of the Funk-Hour Berlin 1926
A radio license receipt from 1944.

When the first broadcasting company in Berlin began broadcasting on October 29, 1923 with the Funk-Hour Berlin , there were still no paying listeners; at the end of the year it was 467. The Reich Telegraph Administration had set the annual fee at 25 Marks, which was then - in the middle of the inflationary period - "multiplied by the proportional number valid on the day of payment for the calculation of telegraph fees in foreign transactions".

For so-called black listeners, the Telegraph Act provided for fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment of up to six months. At first, the number of participants hardly increased, especially since on January 1, 1924 the annual fee was raised to 60 marks - about a third of an average monthly income. The radio emergency ordinance issued on March 8, 1924 further tightened the penalties, but granted amnesty to all black listeners who reported themselves to the post office by April 16. For this purpose, the responsible post office had to be informed in writing of the name and address as well as the type of receiving machine used. After that, the recipient could continue to operate, and the post office delivered the permit against the charging of the first monthly fee of 2 marks. As part of this campaign, in which 54,000 participants are said to have registered, State Secretary Hans Bredow addressed the black listeners via radio:

“Today I turn to the non-paying listeners on the radio. They are so great in number that it is not possible to meet them face to face as in a meeting. That is why I choose this path where I am sure that I will be heard by them. [...] If we agree that the radio system should remain a serious means of transport that brings cultural and economic values ​​to the German people, then we will be good friends in the future. In addition to paying radio subscribers, there is a very large number of non-paying listeners in Germany. First the technically trained and the radio friends attracted by the secret of radio technology [...]; then those who build their own machine out of thrift or enjoyment of handicrafts […]. Finally, there is the not very sympathetic Nassau class , which only leads the interest of toll evasion. What they all have in common is the fact that there is a radio at all [...]. So whoever wants to keep broadcasting must do what he can to protect and support it; then he benefits himself and the general public. "

- Radio address by Hans Bredow on April 4, 1924, printed in Helios on June 29, 1924

The numbers only increased significantly after the fee had been set at two Reichsmarks per month on May 14, 1924, retroactively to April 1 . At the end of the year, 548,749 participants had registered. From the sale of radio components, however, it can be concluded that most people still made their own radio and did not register it. In December 1926, 1.3 million listeners were registered in Germany who paid “7 pfennigs daily” in fees, 40% of which went to the Deutsche Reichspost , as the radio pioneer Kurt Magnus wrote. Magnus also complained that a large part of the remaining 60% could not be used to expand the transmission system and the program, but that "very substantial contributions would have to be paid for the authors".

Ernst Hardt , first director of the Westdeutsche Rundfunk AG Werag (later WDR ), saw it as problematic to threaten non-paying listeners with imprisonment and the destruction of their family relationships. The Deutsche Reichspost built and maintained large parts of the broadcasting infrastructure and urged the program makers to persuade the listeners to adhere to the regulations more aggressively: “There should be real hunting with traps that really snap shut and snares that really catch, and we should help “, Said Hardt in the evening program. "But we don't want to be the hunters of people we love because they hear us." Hardt ended the lecture by announcing that this was the last request before the "black listener raid":

"Let me close this sad, actually serious beginning of a 'fun evening' with the hope that this warning will suffice to help us to get the reward for our work and to help you out of a danger that will be tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, which could end badly for you every day and every hour: fine and the loss of your device or jail. God knows, don't let it get there for the measly two marks! "

The Times of London closely observed the development of fees in the Weimar Republic and reported in 1927:

“The first German broadcasting company, Berliner Funk Stunden AG, was founded in October 1923, in times of great monetary inflation and social unrest. The cost of the first radio license was 60 gold marks or 780 billion of the then current national currency; these numbers give a good idea of ​​the conditions of time. Nevertheless, by the end of the year there were over a thousand optimists willing to spend these enormous sums of money on the privilege of listening to the first German radio programs. After the currency stabilized, the fee sank to 24 gold marks per year, the equivalent of £ 1 4 shillings, where it is to this day. In Germany there are now almost two million radio subscribers. "

- The Times : Broadcasting In Germany. Twenty-Five Stations, October 6, 1927, p. 6

Broadcasting license in 1931

Broadcasting permit for a Cologne listener in 1934

At the end of the Weimar Republic, the radio license or the license to set up and operate a radio receiver according to the radio regulations of November 27, 1931 (Official Gazette of the Reich Ministry of Post, page 509/1931) consisted of a very fine network of "listener rights and obligations". The Rundfunk Jahrbuch 1933 published by the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft (RRG) compares the fee of 2 Reichsmarks a month at that time with the weapon or hunting license , which gives you the right to do something, but in no way a contractual relationship for a delivery Product is received. Building your own radio equipment did not require a permit, but each antenna cost its annual fee. Physically handicapped and “welfare-supported” (ie unemployed and impoverished) people got the fee waived. Companies and larger house communities with subtenants, hotels, etc. received discounts. It was forbidden to wire a licensed system to an unlicensed one in another room. The paying radio listener was allowed to move his device and set up his antennas freely, for example on the roof, and the protesting homeowners were usually wrong in court. Anyone who took their radio reception system with them on their travels, for example to operate them at their holiday destination, had to carry their letter of approval with them in order to present it if necessary.

In 1932 the listener was free to receive foreign broadcasters and test broadcasters. If, however, when selecting the frequency he came across radio news services of the ocean, press, sports and business broadcasts that were not intended for the general public, these could not be "written down, communicated to others, or commercially exploited." These commercial transmissions were for special subscribers Technological and historical forerunners of public broadcasting, media historical forerunners of news agencies and were later replaced by Telex .

Those who didn't listen to the radio for weeks still had to pay; when the system was shut down, it was possible to terminate the contract monthly, in each case by the 16th of the month at his post office. The volume of the radio playback is also addressed in the regulations for broadcasting permits. With the window open, low volume was recommended. Judgments for disturbance of the peace by "loudspeaker noise" were not uncommon in 1932. Anyone who felt permanently disturbed could sue for an omission , whereby the omission related to the volume or the operating time.

The Reichspost gave no guarantee for interference with radio reception and referred to the broadcasting companies, which were obliged to ensure proper operation. However, if a new source of interference appeared in the neighborhood, for example through "pole changers, machines, self-connection offices", one could call the "radio help" and engineers from the post office took care of the problem. Conversely, the fee payer had to ensure that his (not yet fully standardized) system did not interfere with others, such as the operation of telephone systems.

Since the beginning of broadcasting, there have been different opinions about the program and what it was allowed to cost. Towards the end of the Weimar Republic, listeners' dissatisfaction with the fee increased sharply. The radio magazine Schlesische Wellen (subtitle: The cheapest radio program newspaper and the cheapest insurance paper in East Germany ) certified that the program makers and the post, as operators of the broadcasting systems, were sitting on a "throne of aloofness":

“Growing dissatisfaction among German listeners! Again a German radio newspaper has issued a call to fight against the special position of the broadcasting companies and is calling for all listeners to join forces in order to make the responsible authorities aware that they have closed themselves off to the listeners' demands long enough. […] If the listeners receive 2 RM per month. If you pay a fee, then they must by no means be treated like beggars by slamming the doors of the radio palaces in their faces, perhaps with the remark: 'What do you want, listener? You can hear! '"

When the war began in 1939 , the Nazi regime introduced numerous new laws and bans. One of these was the Ordinance on Extraordinary Broadcasting Measures of September 1, 1939; she threatened listening to foreign radio stations with heavy fines. Listeners to satirical contributions or music programs such as Jazz and Swing often got away with a warning from the Gestapo , but also had to expect the radio to be confiscated or a prison sentence. Dissemination of bugged messages from enemy broadcasters could be punished with imprisonment or even death. The defense force dismantling paragraph was interpreted more and more by the courts in the course of the war.

Broadcasting license in the Federal Republic of Germany

Sound broadcasting license from 1958 according to "Regulations on Broadcasting", 1931 (front) Important regulations for the audio broadcast user (back)
Sound broadcasting license from 1958 according to "Regulations on Broadcasting", 1931 (front)
Important regulations for the audio broadcast user (back)

In the Federal Republic of Germany , audio broadcasting permits were still issued after the end of the war and in the 1950s on the basis of the radio regulations of November 27, 1931 (Official Gazette of the Reichspostministeriums page 509/1931 and page 141/1940). They were issued by the Deutsche Bundespost (DBP) for 2 DM per month  , with an instruction about the important regulations for the sound radio participant :

1. All equipment for receiving audio broadcasts by radio or wire (e.g. audio radio receivers, connections of loudspeakers , headphones or amplifiers to audio radio receivers or wire radio ) are considered to be audio broadcast receivers .
2. This permit entitles its owner to operate an audio broadcast receiver at any location. He is only allowed to operate several receivers at the same time in his private household on the property indicated overleaf.
3. The license holder may connect any number of loudspeakers or headphones (listening points) to his receiver for his own shared apartment. For others, however, he may connect a maximum of 10 listening points, and these must be located on the same property as the audio broadcast receiver itself. The user of such a third-party listening point must also have a sound broadcasting license himself.
4. The agents of the Deutsche Bundespost are to be allowed to enter the properties and rooms in which the sound broadcast reception facilities are located at any time.
5. The audio broadcasting fee is due on the first of every month, it is collected monthly by the mail deliverer or debited from the postal check account upon request . The audio broadcasting fees are to be paid regardless of whether the audio broadcasting receivers or listening points are used or not. The fee due for the first time must be paid before the audio broadcasting license is issued.
6. This approval expires if the subscriber resigns (unsubscribes) or if the post office revokes it . Waiver only at the end of the month, in writing by the 16th of the month at the latest! Revocation by the post office in the event of a violation of the broadcasting regulations or other misuse, especially in the event of non-payment of the fees.
7. When this license expires, the sound radio receivers and listening points are immediately put out of operation, ie all connections between the receiver and antennas, earth lines and power sources are disconnected! At the request of the post office, antennas and cables to listening points must be removed within one week.
8. Keep this approval in a safe place and always have it ready with the recipient or listening point used together with the certificate of payment of the due fees! Show the approval and receipt to the agent of the Deutsche Bundespost upon request! Return to the post office after it has expired (see 6)!
9. For more information, contact the post office's radio station.
Television broadcasting license 1958

In addition to sound broadcasting, it was possible to apply for a television broadcasting license for 5 DM per month.

In the event of contradictions to the administrative act of collecting fees, the Oberpostdirektion was responsible, and then there was the possibility of an action at the competent administrative court .

Radio investigators of the broadcasting companies had the task of checking compliance with the operating conditions for the radio receivers and were stipulated in the state laws . In addition to the listener advertising, the investigator was primarily tasked with identifying so-called black listeners. Their tasks included controls in households and other investigations to find black listener, if necessary with the help of the documents held by the postal authorities. After discovering a black listener, the investigator had to arrange for him to submit an application for a broadcast license and, if necessary, for additional fees to be paid for the period in which the radio was used without a license. For his work in the late 1950s, the investigator received a commission of 4 Deutsche Mark (DM) for each application for a broadcasting license and 20 percent of the amount resulting from an additional fee for the newly introduced listener.

Radio license fee in the GDR

According to the broadcasting order of February 28, 1986, the following rates (per month) applied in the GDR :

broadcast 2 marks
Radio and I. TV program 8 marks
Radio as well as I. and II. Television program 10 marks

A further 0.50 marks had to be paid for a car radio . In addition, a “ culture tax” of 0.05 Marks was to be paid for each sentence chosen. The postal newspaper sales department was responsible for collecting the fees . Any number of the corresponding devices could then be operated per household, even when traveling and on the weekend property. Apprentices, pupils and students did not have to pay any fees if their income did not exceed the welfare benefits . Certain citizens ( old-age and disability pensioners ) could apply for the fees to be waived.

From the license fee to the license fee

Since the original framework conditions had changed over the decades (see also the article on public broadcasting ), there were various proposals for adapting the broadcasting financing.

Well-known models presented by interest groups were household-related a broadcast tax (every household is subject to a fee) and a flat rate (such as a poll tax ; every adult with their own income is subject to a fee). What both of them have in common is the fact that they do not need to identify radio devices held in front of them, which simplifies administration. However, this also made people liable to pay who had previously waived television reception or radio altogether.

In May 2010, Paul Kirchhof , who had previously worked as a constitutional judge on several broadcasting judgments, published an opinion on the financing of public broadcasting on behalf of ARD , ZDF and Deutschlandradio . It found that the previous equipment delivery as a result of technological development on the way to the unconstitutionality was. Rejecting financing from tax revenues because of the required “distance from the state”, he proposed a change to a budget tax as the only way out. On June 9, 2010, the prime ministers of the federal states decided to introduce this fee model from 2013.

The license fee used to be a consideration for a government permit. Since the fee according to the new model no longer depends on the actual use of broadcasting, it was renamed Contribution on the occasion .

Broadcasting fees until 2012

In principle, everyone who had a radio receiver ready for reception was obliged to pay the license fee. The use of a radio receiver or the ability to receive certain broadcasters was expressly irrelevant. Under certain conditions, however, one could be exempted from paying radio license fees (Art. 4 of the State Treaty). Devices offered for sale in their original packaging were also not chargeable.

The previous fee exemption for new types of radio receivers (e.g. Internet PC or Internet-enabled mobile phone ) ended on December 31, 2006. This obligation to pay, which has existed since 2007, even without the use of the programs and also for otherwise used and professionally indispensable devices, was despite the extensive fee exemption for these devices a focus of criticism of the system of public broadcasting financing . If it was initially controversial, the Federal Administrative Court has ruled that broadcasting fees are also to be paid for Internet-enabled PCs.

Development of
the monthly fee
1953 1970 1974 1979 1983 1988 1990 1992 1997 2001 (2002) 2005 2009
Basic charge 2.00 DM 2.50 DM 3.00 DM 3.80 DM 5.05 DM 5.16 DM 6.00 DM 8.25 DM 9.45 DM 10.40 DM (€ 5.32) € 5.52 € 5.76
Television fee 5.00 DM 6.00 DM 7.50 DM 9.20 DM 11.20 DM 11.44 DM 13.00 DM 15.55 DM 18.80 DM 21.18 DM (€ 10.83) € 11.51 € 12.22
Total fee 7.00 DM 8.50 DM 10.50 DM 13.00 DM 16.25 DM 16.60 DM 19.00 DM 23.80 DM 28.25 DM 31.58 DM (€ 16.15) € 17.03 € 17.98

Broadcasting fees were in principle charged for each individual receiver, but private households were largely exempted from using a second device. The monthly license fee for keeping radio equipment ready was regulated as follows (as of January 1, 2009):

For radio sets or new types of radio sets (e.g. internet-enabled PC) or radio sets and new types of radio set, the monthly basic fee of 5.76 euros was charged.

For a radio television set (see, if applicable, second device regulation) or television set and radio or television set and new type of radio or television set, new type of radio and radio, the monthly license fee was 17.98 euros, which is made up of the basic fee and the television fee of 12.22 Composed of euros.

In the commercial sector, where there was no exemption for second devices for conventional receivers, a basic fee (EUR 5.76) for each radio device and a television fee (EUR 12.22) for each television set had to be paid. If more televisions were registered than radios, a basic fee also had to be paid for the surplus televisions (Section 2 (2 ) RGebStV ). From 2007 onwards, devices in the commercial (more precisely: not exclusively private) sector that can only receive radio broadcasts over the Internet were exempt from the fees if fees were already paid for other radio receivers on the property.

Broadcasting fee since 2013

With effect from 1 January 2013 which entered into Germany broadcast contribution treaty (RBStV) to replace the existing broadcasting fees State Treaty . For a replaced broadcast contribution the previous license fee - as opposed to a fee is a contribution not bound to the actual use of a service, but must be paid only for the opportunity to benefit. In contrast to a tax , the amount of the license fee (like the license fee before) cannot be freely determined by the legislature . The determination procedure was developed under the decisive influence of the broadcasting decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (in particular: 8th broadcasting judgment ).

Of the 39 euros that households in Germany spent on average monthly for media (excluding books), 42 percent was accounted for by the radio license fee.

away contribution change
01/01/2013 € 17.98 ± 0.0%
04/01/2015 € 17.50 - 2.7%

The broadcasting fee of 17.50 euros per month (up to March 2015: 17.98 euros) is levied as a flat rate in accordance with Section 2 (1) RBStV from every owner of an apartment who owes the contribution, regardless of whether and how many radio devices are available and which ones Broadcasting services (programs, transmission technologies) are locally accessible. Any person of legal age who lives in the apartment themselves is the owner of an apartment. Any person who is registered there in accordance with the Federal Registration Act or is named as a tenant in the rental agreement for the apartment is assumed to be the owner . A contribution obligation arises solely from the fact that there is any possibility of radio reception, which is the case even without the actual presence of receiving devices (radio and television sets) in an apartment. . However, according to § 2 paragraph 3 RBStV more contribution debtor (= householder / tenant) as joint debtor liable falls for each apartment, regardless of the number of roommates only one of any of the persons owing the contributions - the selection is at the discretion of the residential community - to be paid with broadcast contribution to . The contribution also covers the private vehicles of all contributors, but not second and secondary homes or privately used holiday homes . The reduced rate of 5.83 euros is charged for rented holiday apartments (up to March 2015: 5.99 euros). In its judgment of July 18, 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the obligation to pay contributions for second homes to be unconstitutional.

Whoever fulfills certain conditions can be exempted from paying the license fee as a contributor. This applies, for example, to people who receive state social benefits such as unemployment benefit II , social assistance or basic security or who are recipients of training grants . Disabled persons with the mark RF in the severely handicapped pass pay one third of the fee. Deaf-blind persons and recipients of assistance for the blind are exempt from it. Special hardship cases can also lead to exemption from contributions. Nursing homes are viewed as shared accommodation, which means that the contribution is waived.

Institutions and companies

As in the old financing model, since 2013, in addition to private individuals, institutions and companies have also been required to pay contributions. The type of facility and the number of employees are relevant for the number of contribution rates to be paid per permanent establishment, as well as the number of associated vehicles or rented rooms or apartments.

According to calculations by a business newspaper and business associations, the new broadcasting fee for individual companies can in extreme cases be 17 times higher than the old fees. Overnight stays pay the reduced fee of 5.83 euros per month per room.

The lawsuits that caused a stir and were dismissed include those of the drugstore chain Rossmann , the car rental company Sixt and the discounter Netto .

Staggered overview of the broadcasting fees for permanent establishments
Number of employees per facility series Number of posts monthly contribution amount
in euros
three-month contribution amount
in euros
00.000 to 00.008 01 01/3 0.005.83 00017.49
00.009 to 00.019 02 001 0.017.50 00052.50
00.020 to 00.049 03 002 0.035.00 00105.00
00.050 to 00.249 04th 005 0.087.50 00262.50
00.250 to 00.499 05 010 0.175.00 00525.00
00.500 to 00.999 06th 020th 0.350.00 1,050.00
01,000 to 04,999 07th 040 0.700.00 2,100.00
05,000 to 09,999 08th 080 1,400.00 4,200.00
10,000 to 19,999 09 120 2,100.00 6,300.00
from 20,000 10 180 3,150.00 9,450.00

Accommodation contribution

Even hostels and similar institutions generally fall under the obligation to pay fees. According to an estimate by a professional association, the new fee schedule would result in around 18 million euros annually for the approximately 250,000 youth guest rooms without television in Germany. In general, non-profit organizations and associations that were previously exempt from the license fee are now also liable to pay contributions. Even with the switch to the contribution model, there are still full contribution exemptions in exceptional cases.

The Federal Administrative Court decided in the proceedings with the file number BVerwG 6 C 32.16 at the end of September 2017 that the broadcasting fee for hotel and guest rooms as well as holiday apartments (accommodation fee) may only be levied if the rooms and apartments also offer reception facilities. Only then is the payment of the additional broadcasting fee compatible with the Basic Law . The starting point for the proceedings was the hostel's operator who refused to pay the additional fee for guest rooms in addition to the general radio license fee for business premises. She had argued that there were no televisions, radios and no Internet access in the rooms. While she lost her argument in the lower courts, the Federal Administrative Court found her right.

Premium income

The declared aim of those involved in the development and legal implementation of the changed financing model was the so-called revenue neutrality - that is, that not significantly more or less money is received than under the old model. The amount due to the broadcasters to cover their needs, calculated by the Commission to determine the financial needs of the broadcasters, remained the same as in the previous model. According to the old radio license fee model based on receivers up to 2012, there were deficits of up to 304 million euros in completed fee periods compared to the approved needs of the broadcasters. In accordance with the KEF procedure, premium income exceeding the previously approved requirement should be offset against the requirement for future years, so the broadcasters should not spend more money than before, even with higher income. The costs for the GEZ in 2008 amounted to 2.26% of the total.

The income was distributed among the individual broadcasters as follows:

Overview of contribution distribution
Broadcaster 2014 2019
included share of
state media authorities
Total revenue included share of
state media authorities
Total revenue
0Bavarian radio 25,314,502.79 981,498,511.82 24,992,881.10 956,466,918.71
0Hessian radio 11,736,791.46 455,021,029.87 11,270,266.10 431,627,194.69
0Central German radio 16,684,713.71 646,137,515.38 15,964,490.79 611,970,095.48
0Northern German Radio 27,483,244.76 1,063,855,024.81 26,415,961.06 1,011,938,129.44
0Radio Bremen 1,221,522.78 47,993,576.27 1,174,982.14 45,051,412.47
0Broadcasting Berlin-Brandenburg 11,436,527.89 443,161,968.58 11,311,412.92 433,392,232.83
0Saarland radio 1,925,166.16 74,290,372.47 1,773,405.41 67,970,040.84
0Südwestrundfunk 28,418,637.95 1,099,508,585.52 27,535,213.67 1,054,895,144.53
0West German Radio Cologne 33,034,204.33 1,278,930,441.04 31,728,357.44 1,215,678,254.76
ARD (overall) 157,255,311.83 6,090,397,025.76 152,166,970.63 5,828,989,423.75
Second German Television 2,020,555,631.62 2,008,636,510.82
Germany radio 213,311,115.31 230,492,030.55
total 8,324,263,772.69 8,068,117,965.12

Due to the new device-independent broadcasting fee, experts from the German commission to determine the financial needs of broadcasters assumed additional income of 1.5 billion euros in the current fee period up to 2016.

According to information on the website of the ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio contribution service , payment requests or reminders are not sent by e-mail, but are still sent by post . With every assessment notice after default of payment, there is a late payment penalty of 1 percent of the outstanding contribution owed, but at least 8 euros.

Criticism of the radio license fee

Already in the past millennium there were numerous private activities and initiatives that opposed the earlier license fee and, for example, took legal or journalistic action against it. With the advent of the Internet , these activities extended to running websites for publishing or maintaining web forums that were directed against the license fee. Such activities were continued with the transition to the license fee, on the one hand, and new activities and new websites were created on the other.

Numerous newspapers accompanied the introduction of the broadcasting fee decided by the federal states with harsh criticism of the public broadcasters. According to the broadcasters, some reports contained factual errors and sometimes gross untruths; ARD , ZDF and independent media experts and specialist journalists called for the discussion to be objectified. Some accused the newspapers Bild and Handelsblatt of propaganda against ARD and ZDF. In the meantime, the city ​​of Cologne announced at the end of January 2013 that it would stop paying broadcasting fees, as the new regulation had turned out to be “bureaucratic madness”. A few days later, however, she reached a compromise with the WDR to support the fee calculation and withdrew her announcement.

In March 2013, people demonstrated against the license fee in several cities in Germany.

In mid-March 2014, the state minister-presidents decided to reduce the monthly fee by 48 cents to 17.50 euros. The KEF fee commission had previously proposed reducing this by 73 cents per month. When calculating the 73 cents, it left half of the 1.15 billion euro surplus between 2013 and 2016 as a "safety reserve" with the public broadcasters (without them the recommended reduction would have been even higher). The FAZ criticized "that the public broadcasters [anyway] talk about their supposed financial misery".

FAZ publisher Jürgen Kaube wrote in August 2017 that the “majority of the forcibly financed broadcast” had “nothing to do with democracy , an educational mandate or even stimulating thoughts that would otherwise not be available through increasingly higher compulsory taxes”. He criticized "the people selling for stupid things, they would have to pay dearly for all of this regardless of the use - for example, with utilities often well above those of the public service, as the financial controllers have been complaining for years - because otherwise the community would be endangered" . The claim that you need "that much money and more and more of it to guarantee basic supplies for democracy" is impertinent .

In a survey from May 2018, 58 percent of those questioned stated that they would pay this voluntarily - in varying amounts - even if they were not obliged to pay the broadcasting fee. In a representative survey published in February 2016 by the opinion research institute INSA , 69.4 percent of those questioned were in favor of abolishing the license fee. 12.6 percent were in favor of retaining it.

In its 2019 annual report, the Federal Audit Office criticized the tax advantages of broadcasters. As a result, the German state would have subsidized the public broadcasters with 55 million , which, in the opinion of the Court of Auditors, they are not entitled to. Most recently, the broadcasters received 7.8 billion untaxed annually. The flat rate has not been adjusted in the last 20 years and is too low according to the federal agency.

Legal proceedings

Since 2012, numerous lawsuits have been pending against the broadcasting license in several courts, including both the principle of equality and the jurisdiction of the federal states, which the plaintiffs considered violated and which for the most part have been dismissed or have not yet been concluded. In 2016, around 4,000 lawsuits were filed against the license fee. Most of them remained unsuccessful: "The constitutionality has been clarified for the court, so that the Federal Constitutional Court's decision is not yet awaited," said a spokesman for the administrative court in Schleswig . In April 2017, the Frankfurt am Main Administrative Court , on the other hand, suspended several proceedings regarding the legality of the broadcasting contributions pending the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court . The Göttingen Administrative Court also suspended proceedings for the same reason in October 2017.

Constitutionality

The Federal Constitutional Court did not accept the constitutional complaint of a Christian who, according to his own statements, was devoutly religious, who argued that he rejected any form of broadcasting for religious reasons and that he also lived in very modest circumstances, since the administrative court had to take legal action first. In addition, in its decision of December 12, 2012, it pointed out that "according to Section 4 (6) sentence 1 of the RBStV, the state broadcaster has to exempt the state broadcaster from the obligation to pay contributions in special cases of hardship upon separate application". Sentence 2 of the provision gives an example of a hardship case, but does not contain an exhaustive list, so that other hardship case aspects could also be asserted. In any case, it was not excluded from the outset that the complainant could obtain an exemption from contributions with such a hardship application, in which he could state his religious attitude and all of his living conditions.

On May 15, 2014, the Bavarian Constitutional Court ruled that the radio license fee was constitutional. The popular lawsuits of the drugstore chain Rossmann and the lawyer Ermano Geuer (Vf. 8-VII-12 and Vf. 24-VII-12) were dismissed. With judgment of May 13, 2014, the Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate (VGH B 35/12) dismissed a constitutional complaint that directly violates the provisions of the State Treaty on Broadcasting Subsidies, which is Art State law on the Fifteenth Amendment to the State Treaty on Broadcasting of November 23, 2011 (GVBl. 385) according to Art. 101 Clause 2 of the Constitution for Rhineland-Palatinate - LV - was adopted into state law.

In a judgment of June 17, 2015, the Munich Administrative Court dismissed a lawsuit against Bayerischer Rundfunk , which was directed against the obligation to pay broadcasting fees for a second home for professional reasons. In the private sector, according to Section 2 (1) of the RBStV , the owner of the apartment, as the contributor, has to pay a broadcast license fee. The law no longer distinguishes between main, secondary, second or holiday homes in Section 2 (1) of the RBStV - unlike in broadcast license law. There are no constitutional concerns. The plaintiff was not violated in his rights and was also not entitled to an exemption or reduction from the broadcasting license fee because he had not submitted that he had fulfilled the exemption requirements of Section 4 (1) RBStV .

The Federal Administrative Court declared the contribution to be lawful in its judgment of March 18, 2016. A constitutional complaint was lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court against this judgment . In January 2017, at least 50 constitutional complaints against the broadcasting fee were pending at the Federal Constitutional Court; in June 2017 there were over 100.

In the proceedings with the file number BVerwG 6 C 32.16 , however, the Federal Administrative Court ruled at the end of September 2017 "that the levying of the additional radio license fee for hotel and guest rooms as well as holiday apartments (accommodation contribution) is only compatible with the Basic Law in those cases in which the business premises owner is supported by the The provision of receiving devices or Internet access opens up the possibility of using the public broadcasting services in the above-mentioned premises. ”It is the first procedure in which an objection to the radio license fee was successful. In contrast to its previous judgments, the Federal Administrative Court thus focused on the receivability for the first time.

The general criticism contrasts with the justification of the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of July 18, 2018: "In the possibility of using public service broadcasting in its function as a provider that is not solely subject to economic competition and guarantees the diversity in broadcasting reporting, through If authentic , carefully researched information offers orientation aid, there is the individual advantage that justifies the levying of the broadcasting fee as a contribution. ”The judges therefore estimate the proportion of information in the program serving the common good as high enough to justify the fee. The First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court, chaired by Ferdinand Kirchhof , declared the broadcast contribution to be essentially compatible with the Basic Law in the private and non-private areas .

However, it is not compatible with the general principle of equality that a license fee is also to be paid for second homes . Nobody can use radio in two places at the same time. The responsible state legislators were instructed to make a new regulation in this regard by June 30, 2020. Two complainants rejected Ferdinand Kirchhof because of concerns about bias , since his brother Paul Kirchhof spoke out in favor of the broadcast in an expert report. By resolution of April 24, 2018, the First Senate rejected the application as unfounded, excluding the rejected judge.

Compatibility with Union Law

In August 2017, the Tübingen Regional Court submitted a submission to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in which the compatibility of the broadcasting fee with Union law was to be checked in several points. Processing by the ECJ takes an average of 15 months. In its judgment of December 13, 2018, the ECJ declared the German broadcasting fee to be compatible with EU law in case C-492/17. From an EU legal point of view, the legislature was not prevented from replacing a license fee, which is linked to the possession of a receiving device, with a license fee from the apartment owner. In particular, this "did not involve any change to existing aid that would have been prohibited by Union law."

Foreclosure proceedings

In a decision of June 11, 2015 (I ZB 64/14), the Federal Court of Justice ruled on appeal on a point of law that the enforcement request of a state broadcaster also meets the legal requirements for the enforcement of license fee notices even if the state broadcaster named in the request does not expressly is named as the creditor of the claim and their address, legal form and representation are missing.

By order of 9 September 2015 (5 T 162/15) the raised Landgericht Tübingen on appeal by a contribution debtor a decision of the District Court of Tuebingen (2 M 715/15) and annulled the execution of the request for enforcement inadmissible. In the order, the court stated that in the head of the enforcement request there was only the word "Südwestrundfunk" on the left, without the legal form and address, and on the right the logo of the " ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio - Contribution Service " along with all address and contact details. On page 2 of the enforcement request you can find the greeting "Sincerely, Südwestrundfunk", page 3 closes after the list regarding assessment notices with a reference to the electronic data processing system. Arrears and “notices” would be listed, but without specifying an issuing authority in the list. The apostrophes correspond to the decision text of the court.

In a decision also by the Tübingen Regional Court of September 16, 2016 (5 T 232/16), in which it also dealt extensively with the case law of the Federal Court of Justice and administrative courts of all instances on the broadcasting fee , it revoked a decision by the Bad Urach Local Court and declared the Foreclosure due to defects in service (cf. service (Germany) and lien ) for inadmissible. In Baden-Württemberg, as the LVwVfG (see Administrative Procedure Act and State Administrative Procedure Act ) does not apply, the broadcasters do not meet the requirements for the presumption of access and thus the effective publication of the notification to determine the amount of radio contributions that are in arrears . The enforcement authority was the Südwestrundfunk (SWR).

The decision states: “The broadcasting fee according to § 2 RBStV could be a tax, which would mean that the state would not have legislative competence (cf. exclusive legislation and competing legislation ). In fact, the license fee could meet the requirements of a tax, since it is in fact levied without any preconditions. Its connecting point, the constituent feature of owning an apartment, means, when viewed soberly, the attraction of every citizen, since figures from the Federal Agency for Civic Education in 2010 show that less than 0.03% of the population lived outside an apartment on the street (and this unlawful condition can also lead to apartment allocation). Against the qualification as a contribution - for the provision of the mere possibility of consumption - speaks also the design in such a way that a person can also be a multiple contributor, in spite of the fact that he can only use it once. "

The Tübingen Regional Court made it clear, however, that the successful contribution debtor is expressly informed that this decision is based on enforcement law considerations and that the contribution obligation according to constitutional and administrative court case law is not affected by it.

The legal complaint pursuant to Section 574, Paragraph 2, No. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( ZPO) was admitted because it enabled uniform jurisdiction ( Federal Court of Justice / Federal Fiscal Court ) on the question of the primary performance notice as well as on the question of the scope and applicability of non-standardized rules in administrative procedural law .

Legal opinion

In her dissertation published in May 2013 , a former employee of the North German Broadcasting Corporation came to the conclusion that the broadcasting fee was a tax or shared charge, not a fee or a contribution. According to the prevailing opinion, the prime ministers should not have decided on a tax. In the Handbuch des Staatsrechts Isensee / Kirchhof , Volume 5, Page 1139, Paul Kirchhof wrote: "A levy is always a tax and not a contribution if it uses beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries to finance a state benefit".

In a legal opinion ( University of Leipzig 2013, constitutional questions of the permanent establishment contribution according to the State Treaty on Broadcasting Fees ), Christoph Degenhart took not only the permanent establishment contribution, but also the private household contribution, fundamental rights issues in material and formal terms as well as the "irrefutable legal presumption of radio use" in so-called spatial units position in the commercial and private sector.

On behalf of ARD , ZDF and Deutschlandradio , not only Paul Kirchhof , but also Hanno Kube prepared a legal opinion in June 2013 under the title “The broadcast contribution - broadcasting and financial constitutional classification” . In summary , it says, among other things, that a sustainable contribution situation must separate itself from the device purchase and instead turn to people as information recipients within the meaning of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Clause 1, Alt. 2 of the Basic Law . In principle, the broadcast offer submitted to every adult must be made subject to contributions, regardless of the reception technology used.

A realistic tax collection will seek to capture people within the typical household receiving community. Constitutional assessments from Article 6 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, and finally also aspects of practicability, urged the address unit of the household. Even in the system of the license fee, the household was typified in the facts of the dwelling. This seems appropriate, especially since it safeguards the private sphere of the household community. The new law, which is based on the facts of the apartment, corresponds to these requirements. The obligation to pay contributions for second homes is justified by the considerable difficulties in distinguishing between real first and second homes in individual cases. The amount of the contribution and the procedure for determining the needs and, if necessary, adjusting the contribution appear appropriate. However, it remains the task of the institutions to continuously check their needs from the point of view of basic services and openness to development on the one hand, and economic efficiency and economy on the other, and to make them transparent in the explanations. The other provisions of the tax and procedural law contained in the State Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions also appeared appropriate and constitutionally unproblematic. There are only a few places where there is a need for improvement in control technology.

In 2014, an expert opinion by the scientific advisory board at the Federal Ministry of Finance was published, which ultimately called for a reform of the broadcasting system. The cost of broadcasting would be 94 euros per person per year, well above the international average. The technical reasons with which the system of public service broadcasting was once justified have “largely faded” today and “in view of technical developments [...] there are hardly any reasons why the broadcasting market should be organized significantly differently than the newspaper market ”. In future, the public broadcasters should only be responsible for programs that private broadcasters would not offer of their own accord. The public broadcasters should finance themselves through taxes as well as a “modern usage fee”, which would only be charged if public broadcasters were actually used.

This opinion also doubts the justification for the large number of entertainment programs on television, counts sports programs as one of the most expensive program areas and recommends

  1. to appear under public law only where the private sector offer shows clear deficits,
  2. completely forego advertising funding in public broadcasting,
  3. to opt for either clear financing from the general budget or a modern user fee and
  4. to create greater transparency through the publication of parameters.

In 2015, the Institute for Competition Economics at the University of Düsseldorf prepared an expert opinion, which the libertarian freedom institute Prometheus - which mobilized with a campaign and petition against the "compulsory contribution" of radio license fees - had commissioned. The report came to the conclusion that the broadcasting fee should be abolished and the public broadcasters should be largely privatized. According to the expert opinion, the necessity of public service broadcasting was justified with various market failure theories that are no longer applicable today. There is now "an extremely extensive range of programs with around 400 television stations in Germany, numerous video-on-demand offers and new communication channels". The diversity of opinion has "reached an unprecedented level, particularly thanks to the Internet".

Development since 2019

Index model, financial needs of public service broadcasters

At the end of May 2019, the conversion of the radio license fee to an "index model" was discussed, according to which the target for the future calculation of the radio license fee based on the development of inflation is 18.35 euros. Under certain circumstances, this would have led to unpredictable increases. At a meeting of the Prime Ministers on June 6, 2019, a corresponding consensus could not be reached. Criticism of the index model came among other things. From KEF chairman Heinz Fischer-Heidlberger : "It is not possible to believe that contribution stability can be achieved through indexing". The broadcasters' financial needs and an index method did not go well together. Either the index is too high in relation to the needs of the broadcasters or vice versa. In the latter case, the public broadcasters would be underfunded. It is also feared that this model will result in a shrinking of the broadcasters, because the inflation rates and collective bargaining agreements at the broadcasters have long been above the consumer price index . It is also questionable to what extent constitutional and European law questions need to be answered.

The uncovered financial requirements of the public broadcasters submitted to the KEF for examination for the years 2021 to 2024 amount to a total of three billion euros. The ARD wants to 1.84 billion euros, in addition, the ZDF EUR 1.06 billion and the Germany Radio 104 million euros. The broadcasters are currently taking in around 8 billion euros per year in radio contributions. The Commission had identified a financial gap of a good 1.5 billion euros, but still called for austerity measures.

Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic

On May 15, 2020, a decision by the nine ARD state broadcasters, ZDF and Deutschlandradio was reported. This includes that there should be a "Corona discount" for companies on the radio license fee. Companies, institutions and public welfare organizations could apply for an exemption if a permanent establishment was closed for at least three consecutive full calendar months due to an official order. So far, a three-month closing time has only been a reason for seasonal businesses such as ice cream parlors or guest houses to be exempted, and only if an application has been made beforehand. A retroactive exemption is now also possible. Households that are experiencing payment difficulties due to the Corona crisis would have the option of agreeing payment relief in the form of installment payments or deferrals with the contribution service.

On May 18, 2020, more precise modalities for the radio license fee for business premises during the Corona crisis became known. After that, if they had to close for at least three months, they can get their radio contributions back retrospectively. The prerequisite for an exemption, however, is that there was an official order for the closure, that it lasted at least three consecutive full calendar months and that business operations had to be completely stopped. The exemption does not apply to out-of-home sales of food and drinks or to a reduced-open sales area. An application can also only be made once the closure has ended. On November 26, 2020, during the partial lockdown, reports were made of further concessions to business premises owners during the Corona crisis. So far, companies and institutions, including those that are active in the common good and have been forcibly closed for at least three months, have been exempt from broadcasting fees. ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio have agreed that this is now also possible in an expanded form. Unlike in the past, the closure period no longer has to consist of three full, contiguous calendar months, but companies can add up all the days on which a permanent establishment was closed.

Annual report for 2019

On June 23, 2020, the contribution service presented its annual report for 2019. The question of whether and to what extent the corona pandemic will affect these numbers in the future could not be answered. However, it can be assumed that there will be effects from more exemptions or fewer operating sites. However, this would only become noticeable in the course of the next year because, for example, the receipt of social benefits is a prerequisite for an exemption from contributions for private individuals. It is also unclear how many companies are affected by temporary or permanent closings.

Total revenues rose by around EUR 60 million in 2019 to EUR 8.0681 billion. The main cause was the comparison of reporting data from 2018. In this way, around 500,000 new contributors were tracked down. The number of registered apartments was around 39.9 million at the end of 2019, the number of permanent establishments rose by 1.7 percent to 3,956,095. By the end of 2019, the number of people who had to be exempted from the (unconstitutional) license fee for secondary apartments rose to around 131,000. The cost of the contribution service itself remained roughly the same at EUR 174.6 million, which made up 2.16 percent of total income.

When the annual report was presented, it was stated that the Commission for the Determination of Financial Requirements (KEF) had to check whether the program mandate could still be fulfilled in the event of a significant decline in earnings due to the corona pandemic. Otherwise she would have to propose higher contributions to politics. If the parliaments approve the increased contribution late - this was referred to as Saxony-Anhalt - it might even have to be levied retrospectively.

Growing resistance to the radio license fee

In reports on a protest demonstration in front of the Potsdam Administrative Court on July 10, 2020, in which 200 or up to 1000 people took part, depending on the source, the increasing number of those who refused to contribute was also mentioned. According to information from ARD and ZDF, around 3.57 million people owed the broadcasting fee in 2019, 70,000 more than in 2018.

Conflict with Saxony-Anhalt about increasing the radio license fee

In June 2020, the Prime Ministers of all 16 federal states signed the First State Treaty on Media Amendment to amend the State Treaty on Broadcasting, which provides for an increase from EUR 17.50 to EUR 18.36 per month from January 1, 2021.

However, resistance in Saxony-Anhalt prevented the treaty from coming into force. The CDU parliamentary group in Saxony-Anhalt did not want to agree to an increase despite the pressure exerted on them. In a hearing of the media committee on November 13, 2020, in which four directors of the public service broadcaster, including ARD boss Tom Buhrow , their arguments were not convincing.

The position of the CDU in Saxony-Anhalt was justified on December 4, 2020 by state party leader Holger Stahlknecht with the image of East Germany on public broadcasting. The broadcasters did not show enough of the deep changes in the lives of many people: “The public broadcasters occasionally do not report at eye level, but with the raised index finger of moralization […]. It is not about curtailing the freedom of the press . But it must be possible to put the structures of those who live on the money of the contributors to the test. ”The CDU in Saxony-Anhalt does not reject public service broadcasting, but considers it too big and too expensive. On the same day, Prime Minister Reiner Haseloff dismissed Stahlknecht as Minister of the Interior. The relationship of trust was "severely disturbed" because of an unsettled interview by Stahlknecht on the coalition dispute over the radio license fee and the announcement of a CDU minority government.

On December 8, 2020, Haseloff withdrew the government bill to increase the contribution, which means that the contribution will not be increased on January 1, 2021. In doing so, he prevented a vote in the Magdeburg state parliament, in which the votes of the AfD would have had a decisive influence. The broadcasters then announced that they wanted to appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court. The next day there were reasons for it. The ARD chairman Tom Buhrow said about the decision in Saxony-Anhalt that neither factual arguments nor the recommendation of the KEF had played a role. Without sufficient, independently determined funding, the program, which is rooted in all regions, will suffer.

The ZDF director Thomas Bellut complained that the public service broadcasting apparently became the plaything of politics in a federal state. This is exactly what the KEF process, which is organized outside the state, is supposed to prevent in order to ensure the independence of public broadcasting. If the new state treaty is not implemented by January 1, 2021, this will have significant effects. The ZDF alone would be missing around 150 million euros annually. In addition, this would affect the German manufacturing industry, which is dominated by medium - sized companies, and the creative minds. The ZDF could no longer develop its effect as the largest client in this market as before, which would hit the industry, which was already shaken by the pandemic, massively and lastingly.

Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

By decision of December 22, 2020, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applications by ARD , ZDF and Deutschlandradio for the issuance of an interim order , which had been made as part of the coveted emergency legal protection. The constitutional complaints they had raised had not yet been decided. These are neither obviously inadmissible nor clearly unfounded. Both the temporary enactment of the contribution increase and the suspension of the sunset clause in Article 2 (2) of the First State Treaty on Media Amendment, according to which the treaty would no longer apply unless it was ratified by all countries by December 31, 2020, were rejected. The complainants had not explained in more detail that a delay in the entry into force of the amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty would irreversibly lead to serious disadvantages.

ZDF director Thomas Bellut has so far held back with an assessment of the decision. The chairman of the ARD, Tom Buhrow , however, announced effects on the program: Failure to adjust the contribution will require serious measures that will be seen and heard in the program. The managing director of the German District Assembly , Hans-Günter Henneke , who is also a member of the ZDF television council , advised on the other hand to offer viewers and listeners a high-quality program from January 1, 2021, also in view of the urgent decision. The program offer must now be implemented in advance.

As a result of the fact that the radio license fee was not increased, Deutschlandradio took the first steps. The broadcaster made use of its special right to terminate current collective agreements with full-time and part-time employees, which had a term until the end of March 2022 and provided for an increase in salaries by 2.25 percent. In addition, Deutschlandradio decided not to pursue the expansion of the DAB + transmitter network (cf. digital radio and digital audio broadcasting in Germany ) for the time being. Frank Überall , federal chairman of the German Association of Journalists (DJV), criticized the fact that the decision could lead to further drastic cuts that would have a negative impact on the range of programs and the employees. The rbb announced his magazine zibb turn of the year 2021/2022 set; Employees demonstrated on May 1, 2021 against the impending dismissal of 75 freelance colleagues.

On August 5, 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court issued a ruling that the broadcasting fee would be reduced to 18 per month with effect from July 20, 2021 (not retrospectively from January 1, 2021) until a new international agreement on the functional financing of ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio came into force .36 euros can rise. The blockade of the state of Saxony-Anhalt was seen as a violation of the freedom of broadcasting resulting from Art. 5 Para. 1 Clause 2 of the Basic Law . Saxony-Anhalt's Prime Minister Reiner Haseloff (CDU) recognizes a democracy problem in the decision, because it must be possible for a freely elected parliament to decide differently from an authority such as the Commission for Determining the Financial Requirements of Broadcasters (KEF). Every MP is only obliged to his conscience. However, at the end of its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that the possible effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the financial needs of broadcasters and the reasonableness of fee increases for citizens will have to be taken into account .

literature

  • Hanno Kube: The radio license fee. Broadcasting and financial constitutional classification. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1018-8
  • Eva Ellen Wagner: Moving away from the device-dependent license fee. The reorganization of broadcast finance. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-631-60654-4
  • Frank Hennecke: The compulsory broadcast or why the new broadcast tax remains unlawful and unconstitutional. A polemic. Hennecke, Ludwigshafen am Rhein 2021, ISBN 978-3-9821882-4-9

Web links

Wiktionary: Rundfunkbeitrag  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. Crazy image cultivation. GEZ warns website because of the term "GEZ fee". In: Spiegel Online , August 24, 2007.
  2. Annual report 2018. ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio contribution service, July 2019, accessed on February 20, 2020 .
  3. Hans-Peter Siebenhaar : The television company . In: Handelsblatt . No. 18 , January 25, 2013, p. 54 f .
  4. Winfried B. Lerg: The emergence of broadcasting in Germany. Origin and development of a journalistic medium . Frankfurt am Main 1970.
  5. a b Radio address by State Secretary Dr. Bredow to the onlookers. In:  Helios. Trade journal for electrical engineering / Helios. Export magazine for electrical engineering , June 29, 1924, p. 111 (online at ANNO ).Template: ANNO / Maintenance / hel
  6. Janina Fuge: Put on the radio pillory and hunted with the wave detective . In: Hans-Ulrich Wagner (Hrsg.): Northwest German booklets for radio history . No. 7 . Verlag Hans-Bredow-Institut, Hamburg December 2009, p. 9 .
  7. Quoted from Werag - the official organ of the Westdeutsche Rundfunk AG Cologne. Rufu-Verlag Cologne, Issue No. 2 of December 10, 1926.
  8. ^ Westdeutscher Rundfunk (ed.): Yearbook of Westdeutscher Rundfunk . Rufu-Verlag, Cologne 1929, p. 128 f.
  9. Rundfunk Jahrbuch 1933, published by the working group of publishers of official radio magazines and the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, Verlag JS Preuß, Berlin 1932, p. 31f. The book is in the library of the Museum for Communication Frankfurt
  10. Schlesische Wellen, Breslau, May 13, 1932, p. 1. Signature Ona65 / 66-7, 1 / 26.1932 in the Berlin State Library
  11. a b c Expert opinion on the financing of public broadcasting, submitted on behalf of ARD, ZDF and D Radio. (PDF; 540 kB)
  12. ↑ Exemption from fees ( Memento of February 9, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  13. Press release of the Federal Administrative Court of October 27, 2010 ( Memento of August 26, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  14. ↑ Exemption from fees ( Memento of March 9, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
  15. OBLIGATION TO CHARGE ( Memento from February 12, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  16. 15th Interstate Broadcasting Agreement ( Memento of February 28, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF, 103 kB), from the Contribution Service (ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio), accessed on May 24, 2013.
  17. Carl-Eugen Eberle: State and Media - On the distance from the state of public broadcasting (PDF), in: Hansjürgen Garstka and Wolfgang Coy (editors): Wofon - für wen - whatzu. Systems thinking against the dictatorship of data - Wilhelm Steinmüller in memory. Humboldt University of Berlin, May 2014, p. 289 f.
  18. Markus Brauck, Hauke ​​Goos, Isabell Hülsen , Alexander Kühn: image disturbance . In: Der Spiegel . No. 41 , 2017, p. 10–16 ( online - October 7, 2017 ).
  19. Brigitte Baetz : The public law in times of the Internet: To the new broadcast contribution. In: Background , Deutschlandfunk , December 27, 2012.
  20. a b c Federal Constitutional Court: Judgment of the First Senate of July 18, 2018 - 1 BvR 1675/16. July 18, 2018, accessed December 14, 2018 .
  21. The new broadcast contribution. Who can be exempted from paying? Interesting facts about the radio license fee - consumer advice center North Rhine-Westphalia. Retrieved February 23, 2015.
  22. Information on exemption from the license fee and on the reduction of the license fee. (PDF; 111 kB) In: www.rundfunkbeitrag.de. 2014, archived from the original on February 9, 2015 ; Retrieved April 22, 2014 .
  23. Allgemeine Zeitung of March 8, 2013 No. 57, Volume 163, p. 3 Blickpunkt
  24. a b Martin Dowideit, Dieter Fockenbrock, Kirsten Ludowig, Hans-Peter Siebenhaar, Klaus Stratmann: At ARD and ZDF you are caught in the fee trap . In: Handelsblatt . No. 4 , January 7, 2013, p. 1, 4 .
  25. Lisa Hegemann, Hans-Peter Siebenhaar: Rossmann fails with broadcasting lawsuit: the broadcasting fee is constitutional. That was decided by the Bavarian Constitutional Court. The drugstore chain Rossmann had sued. It is not the only company to suffer from the new contribution system. Handelsblatt, April 15, 2014, accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  26. Hendrik Wieduwilt: Federal Supreme Court confirms: Companies have to pay broadcasting fees - No exceptions for companies: The German supreme administrative court dismissed complaints by the car rental company Sixt and the discounter Netto on Wednesday in Leipzig. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, December 7, 2016, accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  27. a b Press Release No. 66/2017: Obligation to broadcast radio fees for hotel and guest rooms as well as holiday apartments only if reception facilities are provided in accordance with the constitution. Federal Administrative Court, September 27, 2017, accessed on May 3, 2018 .
  28. a b c Michael Hanfeld : Pay only upon receipt! FAZ.net , October 1, 2017, accessed on May 3, 2018 .
  29. ^ Hermann Eicher: From the license fee to the license fee. Media Perspektiven 12/2012 (pdf, 622 pages), accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  30. No lower broadcasting fee before 2015 , In: Berliner Zeitung of January 9, 2013, accessed on January 23, 2013.
  31. GEZ: "House visits are history". In: The time. December 19, 2012, accessed January 24, 2013 .
  32. Broadcasting Contribution Annual Report 2014
  33. Goran Goić: Annual Report 2019. ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio contribution service , June 2020, accessed on December 10, 2020 .
  34. Radio contribution makes it possible: 1.5 billion euros more for ARD and ZDF , Der Tagesspiegel. February 3, 2015. Retrieved February 4, 2015. 
  35. ARD and ZDF get significantly more money - broadcasters are silent on the use of the additional income , Heise Zeitschriften Verlag. 4th February 2015. 
  36. "Who is surprised ... The forecast of the VPRT from a year ago about the additional income of ARD and ZDF is apparently confirmed by the now published figure of 1.5 billion euros up to 2016". This means that the annual income of ARD and ZDF from the broadcasting fee amounts to around 8 billion euros. Overall, this corresponds roughly to the national budget of a small European state. ” VPRT estimate of additional public-law revenue confirmed - 1.5 billion leeway should now be used to reduce advertising , Association of Private Broadcasting and Telemedia eV (VPRT). February 3, 2015. Retrieved February 4, 2015. 
  37. https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/rechnung/index_ger.html
  38. Martin Stadelmeier in an interview in the article Five questions about the radio contribution ( Memento from January 28, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), of the NDR media magazine Zapp from January 23, 2013 (from 18:29), accessed on March 27, 2013.
  39. KEF press release ( Memento of June 21, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF file; 40 kB) of January 8, 2013, accessed on January 24, 2013.
  40. Uwe Mantel: Broadcast contribution: Cool facts about the heated debate , In: DWDL.de from January 10, 2013, accessed on January 25, 2013.
  41. Fact check: Discussion on the radio contribution ( memento from December 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), in the DIMBB media blog of January 20, 2013.
  42. Jörg Sadrozinski in the broadcast Rundschau (from 09:32 am) on Bavarian TV on January 16, 2013, accessed on January 24, 2013.
  43. ^ Stefan Niggemeier : Die Nimmerklugen: The "Handelsblatt" propaganda against ARD and ZDF. Blog entry from January 8, 2013, accessed January 24, 2013.
  44. Katja Schönherr : Cost explosion: Rossmann sues against radio license fee. In: W&V of January 10, 2013, accessed on January 24, 2013.
  45. Focus-online : Cologne stops paying compulsory levy
  46. Transitionally in the amount of the previous payments: City of Cologne pays license fee. In: Kress.de , January 31, 2013.
  47. Petitions and protests: Still anger about new radio broadcast , Ruhr Nachrichten. March 30, 2013. Archived from the original on October 15, 2017. Retrieved October 15, 2017. 
  48. Michael Hanfeld : Old Testament. March 15, 2014, accessed May 3, 2018 .
  49. FAZ August 26, 2017 / Jürgen Kaube: From State Broadcasting and Compulsory Fee ( Comment )
  50. tagesspiegel.de: 42 percent of citizens would not voluntarily pay for ARD and ZDF , as of May 6, 2018
  51. Focus online: Survey on broadcasting fees Large majority of Germans no longer want to pay for public broadcasters , from February 19, 2016
  52. Tobias Kaiser: ARD and ZDF: Court of Auditors criticizes tax advantages . April 10, 2019 ( welt.de [accessed April 10, 2019]).
  53. Radio license fee : The first lawsuit. In: FAZ.net. August 14, 2012, accessed January 24, 2013 .
  54. Complaints against radio license fee dismissed . ( tagesspiegel.de [accessed on August 22, 2017]).
  55. Violation of EU law ?: German broadcasting fee is being reviewed by the EU court. In: welt.de. Retrieved September 9, 2017 .
  56. Financing of ARD and ZDF: lawsuits against broadcasting fees are increasing. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. February 24, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017 .
  57. Administrative Court of Frankfurt a. M .: Decision on the suspension of proceedings regarding the legality of broadcasts pending a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court. April 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017 .
  58. Administrative Court of Frankfurt a. M .: Confirmation by email about the authenticity of a decision. May 18, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017 .
  59. Administrative Court of Göttingen: Decision on suspension of the procedure for the broadcast license fee. Administrative Court of Göttingen, October 2017, accessed on October 22, 2017 .
  60. Federal Constitutional Court, First Senate: Federal Constitutional Court - Decisions - Subsidiarity of a constitutional complaint directed directly against the provisions of the fifteenth Amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty - Possibility of an administrative court action as well as an application for exemption from the contribution obligation according to § 4 Paragraph 6 S 1 RdFunkBeitrStVtr BW. December 12, 2012, accessed March 13, 2019 .
  61. Radio license fee - We all pay twice. Interview; FAZ.net, February 6, 2014.
  62. Decision of the Bavarian Constitutional Court of May 15, 2014 on the popular complaints of Mr EG in I. inter alia on the determination of the unconstitutionality of § 2 Paragraph 1, § 5 Paragraph 1 and 2, §§ 8, 9 Paragraph 1 and 2 and Section 14 (9) of the State Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions in the version published on June 7, 2011 (GVBl p. 258, ber. P. 404, BayRS 2251 - 17 - S). Retrieved May 24, 2019 .
  63. Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, judgment of May 13, 2014 in a constitutional complaint procedure against Section 1 of the State Act of November 23, 2011 on the 15th State Treaty on Broadcasting (GVBl. 2011, p. 385) in conjunction with the State Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions. Retrieved May 24, 2019 .
  64. Administrative Court of Munich, judgment v. 06/17/2015 - M 6b K 14.3465. Bavarian State Chancellery (BAYERN.RECHT), accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  65. Federal Administrative Court: Broadcasting fee is legal , Der Tagesspiegel. March 18, 2016. Archived from the original on October 15, 2017. Retrieved October 15, 2017. 
  66. Federal Administrative Court on the broadcasting fee: The compulsion increases with every judgment . March 18, 2016. Archived from the original on October 15, 2017. Retrieved October 15, 2017. 
  67. Federal Constitutional Court decides on broadcasting fees. In: www.tagesspiegel.de. Retrieved July 31, 2016 .
  68. Federal Constitutional Court: Procedure overview of pending constitutional complaints regarding broadcasting fees. In: 10-page information letter. Federal Constitutional Court, February 2, 2017, accessed on February 28, 2017 .
  69. Federal Constitutional Court: Letter on the constitutional complaint procedure 1 BvR 2284/15 et al. July 28, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017 .
  70. Judgment at the Federal Administrative Court: Possibly a breakthrough in the fight against the broadcasting fee. Finanzmarktwelt.de, October 2, 2017, accessed on May 3, 2018 .
  71. https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassungsgericht-karlsruher- Judgment-zum-rundfunkbeitrag-kom-am-18-juli/ 22751938.html
  72. Federal Constitutional Court: Broadcasting contribution essentially constitutional. In: The world. July 18, 2018, accessed July 18, 2018 .
  73. dpa / coh: Federal Constitutional Court: Broadcasting contribution essentially constitutional. In: welt.de . July 18, 2018, accessed October 7, 2018 .
  74. Federal Constitutional Court: Constitutional provisions for collecting the broadcasting fee for the first home and in the non-private area. Press release No. 59/2018. July 18, 2018, accessed December 14, 2018 .
  75. BVerfG rejects requests for rejection: Ferdinand Kirchhof has a say in the matter of broadcasting fees. LTO Legal Tribune Online, May 3, 2018, accessed May 22, 2019 .
  76. Rejection requests against Vice President Kirchhof rejected. Federal Constitutional Court, press release No. 30/2018, May 3, 2018, accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  77. ^ Federal Constitutional Court, First Senate, decision of April 24, 2018, 1 BvR 745/17 and 1 BvR 981/17. Retrieved May 22, 2019 .
  78. dejure.org: case law ECJ - C-492/17. August 3, 2017. Retrieved September 9, 2017 .
  79. CURIA - detailed information. Retrieved September 9, 2017 .
  80. Violation of EU law? German broadcasting contribution is reviewed by the EU court , Die Welt. September 7, 2017. Archived from the original on October 15, 2017. Retrieved October 15, 2017. 
  81. Press release no. 202/18 ECJ: The German broadcasting contribution is compatible with Union law. Court of Justice of the European Union (Press and Information), December 13, 2018, accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  82. European Court of Justice: Judgment of the Court of Justice (fourth chamber) in case C-492/17 - Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger et al. - ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 1019. In: EUR-Lex. December 13, 2018, accessed December 14, 2018 .
  83. Tanja Podolski: ECJ on the radio contribution: Broadcasters win across the board. In: Legal Tribune Online. December 13, 2018, accessed December 14, 2018 .
  84. German broadcasting fee is legal. Die Welt, December 13, 2018, accessed on May 22, 2019 .
  85. Federal Court of Justice, decision of June 11, 2015, file number: I ZB 64/14. Retrieved May 28, 2019 .
  86. Regional Court of Tübingen, decision of September 9, 2015, file number: 5 T 162/15. openJur 2015, 19252, accessed May 28, 2019 .
  87. a b Regional Court of Tübingen, order of September 16, 2016, Az. 5 T 232/16. Retrieved June 14, 2019 .
  88. Proof of sources according to the URL given at this point by the Tübingen Regional Court: Homelessness: The total number of homeless people in Germany in 2010 was 246,000. Of the homeless, around 22,000 lived without any accommodation on the street. Federal Agency for Civic Education, April 23, 2013, accessed on June 14, 2019 .
  89. Anna Terschüren: The reform of broadcast financing in Germany: Analysis of the reorganization and development of an ideal model. Retrieved October 8, 2017 .
  90. Martin U. Müller : ARD and ZDF: Too much money, too little performance. In: Spiegel Online . May 31, 2013, accessed October 8, 2017 .
  91. Legal opinion, prepared by Prof. Dr. Christoph Degenhart, University of Leipzig 2013: "Constitutional issues of the permanent establishment contribution according to the state broadcasting license agreement". Communication & Law K&R supplement 1/2013 to issue 3, accessed on May 24, 2019 .
  92. Hanno Kube: "The broadcast contribution - broadcasting and financial constitutional classification" legal opinion, prepared on behalf of ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio. June 14, 2013, accessed May 24, 2019 .
  93. Opinion of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Finance: Public Service Media - Task and Financing (03/2014)
  94. Tagesspiegel: Reform of the compulsory levy for public service broadcasting Abolish broadcasting fee , dated December 29, 2014
  95. ^ Opinion "Public Service Media - Mandate and Financing" of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Finance from October 2014 , pages 10, 26 and 6
  96. Heise Online: Study: Abolish Broadcasting Fee, Privatize Public Law , from May 26, 2015
  97. Tilmann P. Gangloff: Decision on June 6th: There is a risk of higher broadcasting fees - the financing of ARD and ZDF will presumably be converted to an “index model”. What does that mean and what do the Prime Ministers want? NW Neue Westfälische, May 28, 2019, accessed on May 28, 2019 .
  98. a b Broadcasters want more money: Debate about radio license fees - Orientation towards inflation? idowa (dpa), June 4, 2019, accessed on June 4, 2019 .
  99. "GEZ": Will the broadcast fee increase automatically soon? The Prime Ministers discussed the future of the radio license on Thursday. Again they did not make a decision. Berliner Morgenpost, June 6, 2019, accessed on June 6, 2019 .
  100. Claudia Tieschky (Interview KEF Chairman Fischer-Heidlberger): Index model for the radio contribution: “A radical departure”. Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 19, 2019, accessed on June 14, 2019 .
  101. Helmut Hartung, interview with Prof. Dr. Matthias Cornils: "Full indexing is only permitted with restrictions". medienpolitik.net, April 1, 2019, accessed June 7, 2019 .
  102. Prof. Dr. Matthias Cornils, Director of the Mainz Media Institute, February 2019 (pdf, 98 pages): Constitutional and Union law framework conditions for a full indexation of the broadcasting fee. Mainz Media Institute, accessed on June 7, 2019 .
  103. Michael Hanfeld: Radio contribution: What are three billion? Frankfurter Allgemeine, June 28, 2019, accessed on July 1, 2019 .
  104. Broadcasting fee : ARD and ZDF announce additional needs amounting to billions. Editor CHIP, June 29, 2019, accessed on July 1, 2019 .
  105. Prime ministers decide to increase the radio license fee. web.de, March 12, 2020, accessed on March 12, 2020 .
  106. Christoph Sterz: Radio license fee in the corona crisis: Companies can be exempted. Deutschlandfunk, May 15, 2020, accessed on May 16, 2020 .
  107. German Press Agency (dpa): Companies closed due to Corona get radio license fee back. tvspielfilm.de, May 15, 2020, accessed on May 19, 2020 .
  108. Andreas Wilkens: Coronavirus infects the radio license. heise online, May 15, 2020, accessed on May 19, 2020 .
  109. Due to Corona closure: Companies can be exempt from the broadcasting fee. FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine, November 26, 2020, accessed on November 26, 2020 .
  110. Timo Niemeier: If you have to close for a long time, you don't pay Corona: Relief for companies with radio fees. DWDL.de branch service for the German media industry, November 26, 2020, accessed on November 26, 2020 .
  111. ^ Anne Burgmer: Contribution service presents annual report: Corona consequences for radio contribution uncertain. Kölner Stadtanzeiger, June 23, 2020, accessed on June 24, 2020 .
  112. Oliver Junge: 8 billion radio license fee: Are the fees rising even more? Frankfurter Allgemeine (FAZ.NET), June 23, 2020, accessed on June 24, 2020 .
  113. ^ Eva Schmid, Sabine Schicketanz: Trial of the radio license fee: More than 200 people before the administrative court. Tagesspiegel Potsdamer Latest News, July 10, 2020, accessed on July 11, 2020 .
  114. Demo against radio license fee: 1000 people protest in front of the Potsdam administrative court. TAG24, July 10, 2020, accessed on July 11, 2020 .
  115. Carsten Holm: Conspiracy theorists in Potsdam: 200 people in negotiations for the GEZ boycott. Tagesspiegel Potsdamer Latest News, July 11, 2020, accessed on July 12, 2020 .
  116. ^ State of Rhineland-Palatinate: States sign state treaty to adjust contributions
  117. Decision of the parliamentary group: radio license increase before the end: Saxony-Anhalt's CDU wants to vote no. Junge Freiheit, weekly paper for debate, November 18, 2020, accessed on November 19, 2020 .
  118. Michael Bock: My CDU is not brown. volksstimme.de, December 4, 2020, accessed December 9, 2020 .
  119. Haseloff dismisses Minister of the Interior Stahlknecht in the dispute over the radio license. DIE WELT, December 4, 2020, accessed on December 4, 2020 .
  120. ^ Coalition dispute in Saxony-Anhalt: Haseloff stops increasing the radio license fee. In: SPIEGEL online. December 8, 2020, accessed December 8, 2020 .
  121. Dispute in Saxony-Anhalt: Haseloff blocks the increase in the radio license fee - and saves his coalition. stern.de, December 8, 2020, accessed December 8, 2020 .
  122. Hans-Christian Dirscherl: For higher radio fees: ARD & ZDF go to court. PC-Welt, December 9, 2020, accessed December 9, 2020 .
  123. Decision of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of December 22, 2020, Az. 1 BvR 2756/20, 1 BvR 2775/20, 1 BvR 2777/20. Retrieved December 22, 2020 .
  124. Tom Buhrow, ARD chairman, on the rejection of the urgent applications for the radio license fee. tagesschau.de, December 22, 2020, accessed on December 24, 2020 .
  125. Realize the range of programs in advance. German District Assembly, December 23, 2020, accessed on December 24, 2020 .
  126. No higher broadcasting fee: Deutschlandradio cancels collective agreements. In: tagesschau.de. January 15, 2021, accessed January 19, 2021 .
  127. Demonstration by freelancers of the rbb , rbb online, May 1, 2021
  128. Press release of the Federal Constitutional Court No. 69/2021 of August 5, 2021: Successful constitutional complaints about the First Interstate Media Amendment Treaty. August 5, 2021, accessed August 6, 2021 .
  129. Decision on the radio contribution: Haseloff sees "problem of democracy". In: tagesschau.de. August 5, 2021, accessed August 6, 2021 .