Broadcasting Law (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broadcasting law is a sub-area of media law that deals with the legal framework for broadcasting events. The constitutional basis is the fundamental right to freedom of broadcasting in Article 5 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 of the Basic Law . Just Legal regulations can be found among others in the Broadcasting Treaty , the country's broadcasting laws and the country's media laws of the states.

Legislative competence

According to Article 70.1 of the Basic Law, the legislative competence for broadcasting in Germany lies with the federal states, as the Federal Constitutional Court found in its fundamental 1st broadcasting judgment (exception: international broadcasting, Deutsche Welle law). The responsibility of the federal government for telecommunications from Article 73, Paragraph 1, No. 7 of the Basic Law applies only to transmission technology from the studio exit.

Dual broadcasting regulations

In Germany, the conditions for public broadcasting and private broadcasting differ fundamentally. Together they form the dual broadcasting system . The constitutional basis for this is primarily the broadcasting rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court, which substantiate the freedom of broadcasting.

The freedom of broadcasting imposes on the legislature the creation of a positive order for broadcasting. The legislature must regulate all essential questions of broadcasting regulations by law. The BVerfG sees the requirements for diversity of opinion, the program itself, the regulation of market access for broadcasters and supervision as essential. The BVerfG particularly emphasizes the objective legal fundamental rights dimension of broadcasting freedom : As a serving freedom , broadcasting freedom is not primarily guaranteed in the interests of broadcasters, but in the interests of free individual and public opinion-forming, as the 6th broadcasting judgment establishes.

In the dual broadcasting system, the public broadcasters have to ensure the provision of basic services , it has been said in constant jurisprudence since the 4th broadcasting judgment . In doing so, they fulfill the so-called classic mission of broadcasting , which, in addition to its role in the formation of public opinion and will, includes entertainment and information as well as its cultural responsibility. In the specialist literature, the legal-dogmatic concretization of the basic service is controversial. Their range is interpreted rather broadly on the one hand and rather narrowly on the other. The existence and further development of public broadcasting are secured by a continuation and development guarantee derived from broadcasting freedom, as stated in the 6th broadcasting judgment . In the 7th Rundfunk judgment (Hessen 3) it was established that this guarantee is also a financing guarantee . The organization, financing and internal constitution of the public service broadcasters must meet the constitutional requirements of those who are distant from the state, parties and business.

The BVerfG only demands a lower basic standard from private broadcasters , which is justified in the dual broadcasting regulations by the fact that the basic service is ensured by the public broadcasters. However, according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, private individuals also have to ensure diversity to a certain extent.

Constitutional broadcasting concept

The definition of the constitutional term broadcasting has far-reaching consequences for all broadcasting law, especially the rights and obligations of broadcasters. The simple legal definition of broadcasting in the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty must be distinguished from this: The Basic Law provides specifications for the interpretation of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty and not the other way around. The term broadcasting is not defined in the constitution. Since the 5th broadcast judgment (Baden-Württemberg), the Federal Constitutional Court has emphasized its openness to development and dynamism. The term broadcasting used in Art. 5 I 2 GG cannot be captured in a definition that is valid once and for all , it was already stated in the 4th broadcasting judgment (Lower Saxony) . In the specialist literature, the scope and limits of the constitutional term broadcasting are controversial in view of the development of the Internet and increasing media convergence . Narrow views differentiate z. B. depending on whether Internet services have the special broad impact, topicality and suggestive power of broadcasting postulated by the BVerfG since the 8th broadcasting judgment (fee judgment) . These media effects may be seen with streaming media , but not regularly with other internet services. In some cases, a distinction is also made according to the user's options for interaction and selection with Internet services or according to the degree of relevance to opinion of a service. Broad interpretations of the term broadcasting, on the other hand, assume that most opinion-relevant internet services aimed at the general public (including internet newspapers ) are free to broadcast and argue with their electronic means of transmission. According to this understanding, differentiations between different services only take place at the level of freedom of broadcasting in the State Broadcasting Treaty.

The delimitation of the constitutional press term in press law (keyword: electronic press ) is disputed in the specialist literature .

The delimitation from telecommunications (at that time still telecommunications ) made in the 1st broadcasting judgment (Deutschland-Fernsehen-GmbH) in 1961 , on the other hand, still applies: the broadcasting area of ​​broadcasting is covered by federal telecommunications law .

Regulations for all broadcasters

Sections 1 to 10 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty contain general provisions that apply to the broadcasting of public and private broadcasters .

Arranging and disseminating radio

The broadcasting definition of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty is not identical to the constitutional broadcasting term. In the sense of the RStV, broadcasting is a linear information and communication service; it is the event and distribution of offers in moving images or sound intended for the general public and for simultaneous reception along a broadcast schedule using electromagnetic vibrations (cf. § 2 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 RStV). Pay TV is part of broadcasting (see Section 2, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 RStV). No broadcast are z. B. Offers that are offered to fewer than 500 potential users for simultaneous reception, offers that are used exclusively for personal or family purposes and offers that are not journalistic or editorial (cf. § 2 Paragraph 3 RStV). The state media authorities can determine that telemedia are assigned to broadcasting (cf. §§ 1 Paragraph 1, 20 Paragraph 2 RStV).

Program principles

The general programming principles from § 3 RStV apply to all national broadcast programs, in particular respect for human dignity. § 10 RStV regulates compliance with journalistic due diligence.

Prohibited shipments

The Basic Law guarantees media freedoms (film, press, radio) subject to restrictions by general laws (Art. 5 (2) GG). The programming principles in the broadcasting laws take up this and require broadcasters to comply with the provisions of the general laws when designing programs (e.g. Section 41 (1) sentence 4 RStV). According to the State Treaty on the Protection of Young People in the Media (earlier regulation in the RStV), which, in addition to protecting children and young people in general, aims to protect against such offers in electronic information and communication media that violate human dignity or other legal interests protected by the Criminal Code (§ 1 JMStV) , are expressly not only programs that violate human dignity, glorify war or are harmful to young people , but also programs that violate certain criminal norms, regardless of the criminal liability in individual cases, generally prohibited. A catalog of sanctions with a criminal provision (§ 23 JMStV) and numerous fines that are threatened with a fine of up to 500,000.00 euros (§ 24 JMStV) emphasize the forbidden emphasis. Programs that are likely to impair the development of young people may only be distributed under precautions that usually exclude consumption by children or young people of the age group concerned. Unless the provider takes technical precautions, offers are generally only allowed to be broadcast at certain broadcast times, e. B. between 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. (cf. for details §§ 5, 8 ff. JMStV).

Broadcast advertising

Advertising within the meaning of broadcasting law is any statement in the exercise of a trade, trade, craft or liberal profession that is broadcast on broadcasting either for payment or a similar consideration or as self-promotion with the aim of selling goods or providing services Promote remuneration (cf. § 2 Paragraph 2 No. 7 RStV). If a fee is paid for a mention or representation, this is already considered advertising (especially in the case of surreptitious advertising). In principle, advertising must be carried out as a block between the programs. For the duration of the advertising, different upper limits apply to public and private broadcasters (for details see Sections 15, 16 and 44, 45 RStV).

Advertising must not mislead and harm the interests of consumers, their health and safety (Section 7 (1) RStV). Political, ideological or religious advertising is not permitted (Section 7 (9) RStV).

In principle, advertising and editorial program must be clearly separated from each other in order to rule out any influence on the content of the editorial program through advertising ( separation requirement , cf. § 7 Paragraph 3, 4 RStV). This ensures the independence of programming, fair competition and the interests of the audience. For the same reason, long-term advertisements must be marked (Section 7 (5) RStV).

Surreptitious advertising is prohibited according to § 7, para. 7 RStV. Under certain conditions, paid product placement with labeling is now permitted (§§ 15 and 44 RStV). News speakers or moderators of political magazines are also not allowed to appear in commercials (Section 7 (8) RStV).

Sponsoring of individual programs, which also include short programs in the form of a weather report, is permitted if the content of the program is not influenced by the sponsor and the sponsor is briefly referred to at the beginning or at the end of the program. However, it is not permitted to purchase products or the like. to be advertised. News programs and programs on current political events may not be sponsored (Section 8 (6) RStV).

Short reporting right

According to § 5 RStV, every television broadcaster is entitled to short reporting .

Transmission of major events

Major events are events of considerable social importance. In order to ensure that the general public has access to such events, they may only be shown on pay TV if the event is also broadcast on a free-to-air and generally accessible television program. Major events are 1. Summer and Winter Olympics, 2. All European and World Cup matches with German participation as well as the opening game, the semi-finals and the final, 3. The semi-finals and the final of the DFB Cup, 4. Home - and away games of the German national soccer team and 5th Champions League and UEFA Cup finals with German participation, see § 4 RStV.

Public broadcaster

The public broadcasters have their legal basis in Sections 11 to 19a of the RSTV and other international treaties, e.g. B. ZDF-StV , NDR-StV .

Program principles

The public broadcasters are bound by the program mandate (cf. § 11 RStV). In particular, the broadcasters are obliged to ensure balance, impartiality, objectivity and to adhere to journalistic care. The level of the program must serve the basic service mission of information, education, advice and entertainment.

At sight

Internally, the public broadcasting corporations are controlled by the broadcasting councils organized in a pluralistic manner, the ZDF by the television council. The pluralistic cast is intended to ensure diversity of opinion within the programs. External control is carried out by the state legal supervisory authority, which may only act to a limited extent in order to guarantee the freedom of the state of broadcasting, which the Federal Constitutional Court derives from the freedom of broadcasting . (Legal basis e.g. § 31 ZDF-StV). The data protection supervision is carried out by the broadcasting data protection officer .

financing

In principle, mixed financing is permitted for the public broadcasters. This means that in addition to broadcasting fees (formerly: broadcasting fees ) , public broadcasting can also finance itself from advertising, sponsorship or the production and exploitation of broadcast productions, §§ 12,13 RStV (cf. 6th broadcasting judgment ). Pay-TV, on the other hand, is forbidden to public service broadcasting “within the scope of its mandate” (Section 13 sentence 2 RStV). He may not generate income from value-added telephone services (Section 13 sentence 3 RStV). Income from teleshopping is limited to teleshopping spots (§ 18 RStV). A constitutional guarantee of financing follows from the freedom of broadcasting, which serves to guarantee basic services (see 7th broadcasting judgment ). The financing of public service broadcasting, like the program event, must be kept free from state influence in order to do justice to broadcasting freedom (see 8th broadcasting judgment ). The contributions are determined by the KEF and then collected by the contribution service of the institutions (formerly: GEZ ). Financial equalization takes place between the institutions.

advertising

It is only allowed to advertise in the first TV program of ARD and on ZDF, in the other programs (e.g. Phoenix , third programs ) there is no advertising (§ 16 Abs. 2 RStV). The broadcast of advertising in Erste and ZDF is based on their advertising guidelines, which are based on § 16a RStV and specify the implementation of §§ 7,8,15,16 RStV. Teleshopping windows and channels (cf. § 2 Paragraph 2 No. 10 RStV) do not take place in public broadcasting (§ 18 RStV).

Private broadcasters

Private broadcasters have their legal basis in Sections 20 to 47 of the RStV and the state media laws and state broadcasting laws.

Admission

The organization of private broadcasting requires approval according to § 20 RStV. The state media authorities of the federal states are responsible for this, Section 36 (1) RStV. The Commission for Licensing and Supervision (ZAK), as the body of the licensing authority, is responsible for examining personal admission requirements (Section 20a RStV) and the Commission for determining concentration in the media sector (KEK) is responsible for checking compliance with the requirements for diversity Regulations responsible (Section 35 Paragraph 2, Section 36 Paragraph 2 and 4 RStV). In the admission procedure (§§ 20ff. RStV), among other things, the articles of association , indirect and direct company law investments, capital and voting rights relationships must be disclosed. It must also be proven that the broadcaster does not gain dominant power of opinion through the television program. In order to ensure diversity of opinion , the broadcasters are credited for the audience shares of channels linked under company law (e.g. the channels of the RTL group RTL , RTL II , Super RTL , VOX , n-tv are linked to one another). When determining the attributable audience shares, broadcasters who broadcast regional windows in their programs in accordance with Section 25 (4) RStV receive a 2% credit. There is a further deduction from the actually measured audience share for third-party broadcasting times according to Section 26 (5) RStV. If the broadcasters of a group of companies together have a viewership share of 30% after deducting the bonuses, Section 26 (2) sentence 1 RStV assumes that there is predominant power of opinion. If the organizer does not succeed in refuting this assumption, (further) measures must be taken to ensure diversity. This can be done by setting up a program advisory board (§ 32 RStV), granting airtime to independent third parties (e.g. dctp ) or transferring holdings. The audience shares are determined on the basis of data from the Society for Consumer Research (GfK) by the KEK , which also suggests the respective measures.

Anyone who broadcasts radio programs exclusively on the Internet does not need a license. He has to report the offer to the competent state media authority (cf. § 20 b RStV). Failure to report can be prosecuted as an administrative offense (Section 49 (1) sentence 1 no. 18 RStV). Since § 2 Para. 3 No. 1 RStV excludes offers from the broadcasting term of the RStV that are offered to less than 500 potential users for simultaneous reception, an Internet radio with fewer than 500 simultaneous access options according to According to the definition in § 2, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 RStV, this is a telemedia which, according to § 54, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the RStV is free of admission and registration, d. H. neither a broadcast license nor a registration according to § 20b RStV is required.

financing

Private broadcasters can use advertising, teleshopping , other income (e.g. from sponsoring , merchandising ), fees ( pay TV ) or their own funds to finance this .

At sight

The private broadcasters are monitored by the respective state-owned state media authorities , which monitor compliance with the provisions of the state broadcasting treaty, the state treaty for the protection of minors in the media and the state media laws. In the event of violations, e.g. B. against the advertising regulations, the state media authorities can impose fines according to § 49 RStV.

advertising

A maximum of 20% of the broadcasting time per day may consist of commercials and teleshopping spots, § 45 RStV. In principle, advertising and teleshopping spots should take place as a block that must not impair the connection between broadcasts on television, taking into account the natural broadcast interruptions as well as the duration and type of broadcast (Section 7a (2) RStV). Films - with the exception of series, series and documentaries - as well as feature films and news broadcasts may be interrupted once for television advertising or teleshopping for each programmed period of at least 30 minutes (Section 7a (3) RStV). Church services and programs for children must not be interrupted by advertising or teleshopping spots (Section 7a (1) RStV). Teleshopping windows that are broadcast in a program that is not exclusively intended for teleshopping must have a minimum duration of 15 minutes without interruption (Section 45a (1) RStV).

Regional window programs

A regional window program is understood to mean a radio program that essentially broadcasts regional content as part of a main program, cf. Section 2 (2) No. 6 RStV. To ensure diversity of opinion, the organizers of the two broadest nationwide full-coverage television programs must record regional window programs (for details, see Section 25 (4) RStV and the state media laws ).

Specific questions of broadcasting law

Internet services provided by public service broadcasters

The involvement of public broadcasters on the Internet has been controversial since the 1990s . Under the ordinary law, internet services of the public services are permissible according to § 11 d RStV if they are program-accompanying telemedia with program or program-related content. Under constitutional law, the technical literature argues on the one hand with the development guarantee of the public broadcasting corporation called for by the BVerfG: The Internet offers are necessary for the public broadcasters to fulfill the classic broadcasting contract. On the other hand, the protection of the already existing diversity of providers and opinions on the Internet as well as the interests of radio participants are cited as arguments against an over-reaching online program contract. In 2009, a three-stage test was introduced with which the admissibility of new or changed public telemedia offers can be checked (Section 11f (4) RStV).

Reform of broadcasting finance: license fee instead of license fee

On January 1, 2013, the new State Treaty on Broadcasting Fee came into force. It is the successor to the earlier State Treaty on Broadcasting Fee , which was repealed.

The State Treaty on Broadcasting Fees had linked the obligation to pay broadcasting fees to having a radio receiver ready since 1970 . Since the 2000s, this connection has been increasingly in the discussion of media policy and media law due to increasing media convergence . In particular, the obligation to pay license fees for new types of radio receivers , such as internet-enabled PCs, was controversial. BVerfG (2012) and BVerwG (2010) had affirmed the constitutional conformity of the fee obligation for Internet PCs, after different views had previously been represented in court rulings and specialist literature.

A fundamental reform of the financing of public service broadcasting was discussed in the late 2000s. In 2010, the prime ministers of the federal states agreed on a system change and signed the new state broadcasting license agreement, which was ratified by the state parliaments in 2011. The new contribution law is essentially based on a legal opinion by Paul Kirchhof .

According to the new State Treaty on Broadcasting Fees, there is a fee obligation for owners of apartments in the private sector and for owners of business premises in the non-private sector. In the specialist literature, the constitutional conformity of the new law is controversial, especially with regard to the financial constitutional classification of the broadcasting fee and the compatibility of its design with the principle of equality and prohibition of excesses as well as the compatibility with data protection regulations. Popular lawsuits and a state constitutional complaint against the new regulation were rejected. In the meantime, the Federal Administrative Court has made numerous revision decisions based on the constitutional conformity of the State Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions.

Digital broadcasting, digital platforms

The conversion from the previous analog broadcasting technology to digital broadcasting requires regulations that guarantee equal opportunity and non-discriminatory access to digital technology for the various broadcasters (see on the so-called digital platforms §§ 52 RStV ff.). So- called bottle necks or gatekeepers (goalkeepers) are particularly problematic . H. Points at which a decision is made about access to a transmission technology, the order in which it is displayed in navigators and the compatibility of encryption technologies.

literature

Textbooks:

Comments:

Monographs on individual questions:

  • Roland Bornemann: Administrative offenses in radio and telemedia . 6th edition, Berlin Heidelberg 2017. ISBN 978-3-662-54476-1 (hardcover); ISBN 978-3-662-54477-8 (e-book)
  • Christoph Degenhart : The functional mandate of public service broadcasting in the digital world . Heidelberg 2001. ISBN 3-8005-1288-2
  • Andre Fiebig: Device-related license fee obligation and media convergence. Writings on communication issues, Volume 46. Berlin 2008. ISBN 978-3-428-12618-7
  • Wolfgang Lent: radio, media, teleservices . Studies on German and European Media Law, Volume 6, ed. by Dieter Dörr. Frankfurt a. M. 2001. ISBN 3-631-36960-3
  • Michael Libertus: Basic supply mandate and functional guarantee . Series of publications by the Institute for Broadcasting Law at the University of Cologne, Volume 56, ed. u. a. by Klaus Stern . Munich 1991. ISBN 3-406-35343-6
  • Kai Thum: Simple legal specification of the constitutional functional mandate of public broadcasting . Studies and materials on public law, Volume 30, ed. by Herbert Bethge . Frankfurt a. M. 2007. ISBN 978-3-631-56385-4
  • Anna Terschüren: The reform of broadcast finance in Germany . 2013. (Diss. TU Ilmenau 2012)

Web links

Authorities:

Broadcasting institutes:

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BT-Drs. 13/4708, p. 20
  2. ↑ See e.g. B. Michael Libertus: Basic supply mandate and functional guarantee . Munich 1991, p. 43ff. mwNew.
  3. ↑ See e.g. B. Christoph Degenhart: The functional mandate of public service broadcasting in the digital world . Heidelberg 2001, p. 68ff. mwNew.
  4. ^ In addition Albrecht Hesse: Broadcasting law . 3rd edition, Munich 2003, pp. 117ff. mwNew.
  5. ^ In addition Hubertus Gersdorf: Grundzüge des Rundfunkrechts . Munich 2003, p. 161ff. mwNew.
  6. ↑ See Wolfgang Lent: Radio, media, teleservices . Frankfurt a. M. 2001, p. 29ff., 159ff. mwNew.
  7. ↑ Cf. Christoph Degenhart: The functional mandate of public service broadcasting in the digital world . Heidelberg 2001, p. 55ff. mwNew.
  8. ↑ Cf. Hubertus Gersdorf: Grundzüge des Rundfunkrechts . Munich 2003, p. 36ff. mwNew.
  9. ↑ See Wolfgang Schulz, in: Werner Hahn, Thomas Vesting: Beck'scher Commentary on Broadcasting Law . 2nd edition, Munich 2008, § 2 RStV Rn. 20 mw
  10. ↑ On this Arthur Waldenberger: Press law on the Internet and "electronic press" . In: Gerald Spindler, Fabian Schuster: Law of the Electronic Media. Comment . Munich 2008, p. 421ff. mwNew.
  11. ↑ See BVerwG, judgment of September 21, 2005, Az. 6 C 16.04, paragraph 18  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.bverwg.de  
  12. ↑ See the resolution of the directors' conference of the state media authorities on June 27, 2007 ( memento of the original of October 16, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.alm.de
  13. ↑ For more information, see Roland Bornemann, Ordnungswidruchten in Rundfunk und Telemedien, 6th edition 2017, p. 124 ff.
  14. ^ Roland Bornemann, Christian von Coelln, Stefan Hepach, Gero Himmelsbach, Jörg Gundel. Bavarian Media Act. Loose-leaf commentary, as of June 2017. Art. 8 para. 110 ff.
  15. ↑ See e.g. B. Thorsten Held, in: Werner Hahn, Thomas Vesting: Beck's commentary on broadcasting law . 2nd edition, Munich 2008, appendix to § 11 RStV margin no. 15ff. mwNew.
  16. ↑ See e.g. B. Christoph Degenhart: The functional mandate of public service broadcasting in the digital world . Heidelberg 2001, pp. 83ff., 97f. mwNew.
  17. ↑ See z. B. On the one hand, the ARD information on the three-step test ( memento of the original from June 8, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. and on the other hand the opinion of the Association of Private Broadcasting and Telemedia e. V. on the telemedia concepts of ARD  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.ard.de@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.vprt.de  
  18. ↑ BVerfG, decision of August 22, 2012, Az. 1 BvR 199/11 , BVerwG, decision of October 27, 2010, Az. 6 C 12.09 .
  19. ↑ See e.g. B. OVG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of May 26, 2009, Az. 8 A 2690/08 and OVG Rhineland-Palatinate, judgment of March 12, 2009, Az. 7 A 10959 / 08.OVG as well as an overview of several administrative courts of first instance -Decisions in JurPC Web Doc. 201/2008
  20. ↑ See e.g. B. Sabine Göhmann, Axel Schneider, Klaus Siekmann, in: Werner Hahn, Thomas Vesting: Beck's commentary on broadcasting law . 3rd edition, Munich 2012, § 5 RGebStV marginal number 49ff., Andre Fiebig: Device-related license fee obligation and media convergence. Berlin 2008, passim, always mwNachw.
  21. ↑ Cf. Institute for Copyright and Media Law: A fee becomes a contribution: Prime ministers sign new State Treaty on Broadcasting Fees , December 15, 2010
  22. ↑ Cf. Institute for Copyright and Media Law: Kirchhof report on the financing of public broadcasting , May 9, 2010, Paul Kirchhof, The financing of public broadcasting, 2010.
  23. ↑ Complete overview e.g. B. at Wieland Bosman: Paradigm shift in broadcast finance . K&R 2012, pp. 5–11, Frederik Ferreau, Hans-Christian Poth: Der Rundfunkbeitragsstaatsvertrag . NVwZ 2011, pp. 714–717.
  24. ↑ See e.g. B. Wolfgang Lent: The new license fee for apartment owners . LKV 2012, pp. 493–498.
  25. ↑ See e.g. B. Albert Post, Irena Klepper: The new State Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions . Church & Law 2012, pp. 105–112.
  26. ↑ Roland Bornemann, An interjection on the legal nature of the broadcast contribution, K&R 2013, p. 557 f.
  27. ↑ See e.g. B. on the one hand Andreas Gall, Axel Schneider, in: Werner Hahn, Thomas Vesting: Beck's comment on broadcasting law . 3rd edition, Munich 2012, Vor RBStV marginal number 24ff., On the other hand Christoph Degenhart: Constitutional questions of doubt of the broadcasting license agreement . ZUM 2011, pp. 193-200.
  28. ↑ See e.g. B. on the one hand Armin Herb: Data protection regulations in the State Treaty on Broadcasting Fee . DuD 2011, pp. 270–274, on the other hand Ermano Geuer : On the unconstitutionality of the “household tax” for public broadcasting . Verwaltungsrundschau 2012, pp. 378–381.
  29. ↑ Bavarian Constitutional Court, decision of May 15, 2014 - Ref. Vf. 24-VII-12 and Ref. Vf. 8-VII-12 ( Memento of the original from May 15, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de
  30. ↑ Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, judgment of May 13, 2014 - Az. VGH B 35/12 ( Memento of the original of March 24, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www2.mjv.rlp.de
  31. ↑ BVerwG, judgment of March 18, 2016 - 6 C 6/15, BVerwGE 154, 275; Judgment of September 19, 2016 - 6 C 22/16, BeckRS2016, 53758; Judgment of January 25, 2017 - 6 C 18/16, BeckRS 2017, 108621.