Dispute over broadcasting fee enters another round

The dispute over the broadcasting fee will continue to occupy the courts. The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig has decided that the Administrative Court (VGH) in Munich must once again deal with the complaint of a woman from Bavaria who did not want to pay the broadcasting fee. In the end, the obligation to pay the fee could end up before the Federal Constitutional Court again. However, the road there is rocky after the Leipzig ruling.

Plaintiff: Program neither balanced nor diverse

The plaintiff had argued that public broadcasting was failing to fulfil its legal mandate because the program was neither balanced nor diverse. However, the federal judges emphasized that there are high hurdles to prove this - and thus a possible unconstitutionality of the broadcasting fee. (Ref.: BVerwG 6 C 5.24) In the previous instances, the case had been dismissed.

The Federal Constitutional Court had confirmed the broadcasting fee in principle in 2018. According to the court, the individual benefit for users, which justifies the contribution, lies in the possibility of receiving the channels. Whether you actually watch or listen to ARD, ZDF or Deutschlandradio is irrelevant.

However, the program must be designed in such a way that the functional mandate of public service broadcasting is fulfilled. This mandate is to report objectively and impartially, taking into account the balance and diversity of opinion.

Courts should be able to review program diversity

In 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court had no doubt that the public service programming justified the obligation to pay contributions, said the presiding judge at the Federal Administrative Court, Ingo Kraft. "Whether this has changed in the meantime is a matter for the court to assess, without the broadcasters having any discretion in this respect." For this reason, the VGH in Munich will have to deal with the matter again.

The federal administrative judges set high standards, however. There must be a "gross disproportion between the tax burden and program quality". In order to examine this, a period of at least two years must be taken into consideration. Scientific reports would have to provide "sufficient evidence of evident and regular deficits" in the program.

New review by the Federal Constitutional Court?

If the VGH comes to the conclusion that the broadcasting fee is unconstitutional on this basis, the obligation to pay the fee would have to be submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court again for review. "However, based on the factual submissions to date, it currently appears extremely doubtful whether the plaintiff will be able to obtain a referral to the Federal Constitutional Court," said Kraft.

The plaintiff's lawyer said that the ruling was a success. The fact that the administrative courts are obliged to examine the diversity of programming is good news for the legal protection of citizens. The hurdles are rightly high, he said, because freedom of broadcasting is a valuable asset.