Saxony-Anhalt blocked the planned increase in the license fee by 86 cents. On the other hand, the public lawyers have been brought before the Federal Constitutional Court. Today the decision will be announced.
Karlsruhe – The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to increase the broadcasting fee is eagerly awaited.
In the middle of the federal election campaign and the coalition negotiations in Saxony-Anhalt, the court in Karlsruhe wants to publish its decision in writing today: by press release and on its website. It is about constitutional complaints from the public broadcasters ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio against the blockade by Saxony-Anhalt last year to increase the contribution by 86 cents a month. (Az. 1 BvR 2756/20 et al.)
For public broadcasters, the radio license fee is the main source of income. It has been charged per apartment since 2013 and amounts to 17.50 euros per month. At the turn of the year it should have risen to 18.36 euros. The independent commission KEF has determined the demand. It would have been the first increase since 2009.
A financial gap of 1.5 billion euros should be closed between 2021 and 2024. In order for the negotiated state treaty to come into force, however, the approval of Saxony-Anhalt is missing.
Approval from all 16 state parliaments required
The state’s prime minister, Reiner Haseloff of the CDU, withdrew the draft law on December 8th before the vote in the state parliament because it became apparent that his party – unlike the coalition partners SPD and Greens – would not support the increase. And the head of government did not want to make common cause with the AfD, which is known as a critic of public service broadcasting. But because all 16 state parliaments have to agree, the increase is blocked.
The broadcasters see their freedom to broadcast as violated and have sued in Karlsruhe. The highest constitutional judges in Germany rejected urgent motions shortly before Christmas because they were not justified well enough. Her constitutional complaints were also “neither obviously inadmissible nor obviously unfounded,” the court said at the time. However, there was no reason to intervene immediately. dpa
