Why do I have to transfer money for radio and television in Germany?

I have recently posted a post by ZDF in the states that I should transfer money in the amount of 59.90 euro, although I hear at home never radio or watch TV!

I always look at Netflix and it's good.

Why do I have to pay for these labers can anyone explain to me?

The state provides educational opportunities that would not be profitable if it were made commercially. Documentations are (if properly researched) enormously expensive but very instructive. You have the opportunity to look at them, so you pay for them.

As a result, you will be able to afford this opportunity of education for everyone.

Own apartment, you have to pay this fee. Even if you only have internet you have to pay.

Radio in the mobile or car?

https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/

Here are all legal issues explained again.

Education you say Ahja understand it does not interest people radio or television these days so in my opinion the whole makes no sense

It is not in your opinion…

So I use the opportunity and Please also remember that the money is also spent on internet streams and other.

Anyone who has ever seen / heard a piece from any Bundestag session could only do so thanks to this money

The State
provides educational opportunities that do not pay off

But if he would also pay education tax for it. Finally, you can tax everything that seems to be made ready… Regardless of whether it is used… So missing only that the baker gets his bread paid even though he has not sold any… Finally, you could buy his bread. Misery or?

Education you say Ahja understand it does not interest people radio or television these days so in my opinion the whole makes no sense

But, the sense is rip off and make a nice life at the expense of others, which influenced by the government even suggestive, guided by advertising and wonderful as brain amputated zombies are controlled… Not in vain comes the "entertainment" of "hold down"…

According to the State Treaty, every household has to pay a broadcasting fee. Since you will not be able to press forward. Whether you watch TV or not does not matter, everyone could say. Even if you do not own a TV you have to pay, after all, you can see through the "modern media" such as smartphones, computers, but does not matter. You are required to pay.

Misery or?
No of course not. Whether he sells rolls can be determined very easily, if you do not see ARD / ZDF. Misery or? No of course not.

You can't tell at all if I look something or not… And think first before you tell nonsense again!

The GEZ demands money, because it provides something and not, whether it is used… Has that arrived with you? Her saying is; You could "yes" receive television and not YOU watch TV?! That's what the rip-off is based on… And if you understood that, then look again at the example of the bun! Moreover, this is just a company that have not signed any contract with you… You owe it to anyone, whether you have a flat or not… Or should now pay a homeless man, because he from his garbage bin, across the window television can look? Yes, we're already there…

And another thing… Anyone who now has a PC and Internet should pay? I think it starts!

Either you work for the club or you really have no idea… I'm not sure about you!

But I'm sure that as a pensioner I do not work at all.

Anyone who now has a PC and Internet should also pay? I think it starts!

Nonsense, that's not the case. The fee is tied to the apartment. It is completely indifferent whether due TV, PC or Internet have. Apparently you did not understand the system.

You owe it to no one, whether you have a flat or not

Of course you are due the fee if they have an apartment. If you do not have one, you pay nothing. So your example with the homeless guy is absolute nonsense. Does he have his own apartment? No, so he pays nothing.

Apparently you did not understand the system.

What's the point of having an apartment with the idiots? Answer me that, because it is not just a tax… But a fee and for what should be? Is that a residential fee? No it is not… So nothing! Apartment, living, living… TV is luxury, … Just like radio! So has nothing at all to do with housing or living!

So now I have an apartment to live… Well, then now everyone can come and want to turn his vacuum cleaner… Finally, the dinging bell is available for everyone right? And then I'm allowed to pay any fee scratching my door and they'll get a fee for that, because they've given me something… Did we get in the land of the Knockouts? Could it be?

"The Rundfunkbeitragstaatsvertrag

is in the law of the Federal Republic of Germany an international treaty between all 16 German states. "It is said so beautifully by WIKIPEDIA.

Unfortunately there's an important error.

The FRG was never a state and since 1990, the FRG is no longer, so the state contractor is missing.

Television and radio has absolutely nothing to do with luxury, which you can already see that the devices are not attachable.

Is that a housing fee?

I assume that you can read and understand. It is expressly a radio / TV fee, which is due for each apartment. Nobody can tell me that it does not use the services. You can't make your own right, that's why you have to pay. Point!

Do not you want to understand it or can't understand it?

Youtbe I took a short look for a while until the level became too primitive. That's even worse than RTL garbage TV.
By the way, have you ever noticed that TV productions are also shown on Youtube to a large extent? Do you think someone produces for you for free?
Incidentally, I do not know what the theater should, that the Federal Constitutional Court has determined that the fee is constitutionally.

Most throw the flicker box out the window? I do not even believe that. Of course you have the flicker box, which does not flicker any longer because the LCD / LED display can't flicker, stand at home and use it every day for several hours.

I know the guys who "never watch TV", come home and turn on the TV first.

Did we arrive in the land of the Knockten? Could it be?

If I read what you write, you could actually believe that. Laughing

You can't pay "any" fee, but the broadcasting TV fee. This has decided the majority (democracy). Can you choose the alternative for democracy (AFD). The wants to abolish the public service and create a tax-financed state television. Do you think, then you would not pay just because the taxes are increased and paid out of the pot?

By the way, we already had a state television between 1933 and 1945. You can emigrate to North Korea, so you can enjoy it too.

The FRG was never a state and since 1990, the FRG is no longer, so the state contractor is missing.

This nonsense always makes me laugh again. What is the Federal Republic then? You can even google the prerequisites for a Staa. All characteristics are fulfilled by the Federal Republic of Germany.

Can you explain to me why the accession of the "GDR" should have led to the dissolution of the Federal Republic? If idiocy was painful, you would scream in pain all day. Laughing

Whether or not the Federal Republic is a state is not decided by underprivileged people like you.

That the devices are not attachable.

Well with so old scrap worth nothing is probably. But such a super-large plasma screen for 3000, - € you go to the heart uhh purse…

The point is FOLLOW… There's absolutely no right to give the tenant a fee, just because you believe something… In addition, the apartment does not even belong to him, so would pay at most the landlord owns the apartments…

And the case is already known by a hotel owner, who had simply complained against it, because he should pay for all rooms… Of course he won the case, which means that the one who rents the apartment has also rented the apartment indefinitely… POINT! And of course, everyone stares into the telly…, ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, they would explain to you more exactly what you pay for your devil!

But I will stay with the topic and give you some facts…

I summarize all the arguments:

1.) There's no state of Germany, therefore it can't

Broadcasting Agreement.

2.) There's also no constitution for Germany, but only a constitution for the

Federal Republic of Germany, which, however, has not been in force since 1990. That's why it can

also no Federal Constitutional Court.

3.) The election law for the general election is invalid since 1956. So it has not since then

constitutionally elected elected representatives, ie no legitimate legislator.

Therefore, all laws since 1957 (since the first general election took place) would have to be invalid.

(see: The elections and the consequences)

4.) The reporting by the public service media is neither independent nor

factual. They ultimately serve to stultify the inhabitants of this country and the

Maintaining the illegal system.

5.) The Code of Civil Procedure violates the quotation and should be invalid.

(see: The quotation)

6.) Because the entire system simulates only one state, but is not a state, nobody leads sovereign

Functions off. Therefore, the employees of the authorities usually do not sign their letters

or "on behalf" of an unnamed client.

(see: Signatures, In the order, How UnRecht is bent)

So what do you do? Pay the broadcasting tax or not pay? Continue to be wrong

bow or put an end to the dumbing down?

Features of a

https://de.wikipedia.org/...che_Grenze surrounded territory (
https://de.wikipedia.org/...atsgebiet),

Limits? We have no limits! What do you think why so many can immigrate here… Even uncontrolled

Everything just window dressing…

YOU do not decide what a state is or not.

No, I know what a state is or not!

How do you come up with the idea of the constitution that the constitution of the Federal Republic would not apply since 1990?
Even if that were so, what effect should that have? No state has to have a constitution. Britain has never had a constitution, GB is not a state? Laughing

The reporting of the ÖR is neither independent nor factual?
That is your opinion. Probably they would be if they held your opinion. Laughing

By the way, nowhere does it say that they have to be that.

I do not go into the rest of the nonsense, my time is too good for that.

It's funny how you deny the validity of laws based on other laws. In your opinion, they are not valid. Laughing

How can you invalidate the validity of other laws with invalid laws?

I'm sorry, time too bad and I'm too stupid. I could never do anything with the feeble-minded "Reich citizens". You work freely after Pippi Longstocking "I make the world as I like it."

We have no limits! What do you think why so many can immigrate here… Even uncontrolled

Nonsense, because of the Schengen Agreement we have EU external borders. How a state treats its borders is up to it.

Of course we have a border between Germany and France. Must a limit for you be a minefield with automatic machines? The times are, thank God, over.

No, you do not decide what a state should look like. This is regulated internationally. Since your opinion interested in a wet rubbish.

If you are happy with your conspiracy theories, then please. It is yours.

Three characteristics of a state
A state must fulfill three characteristics:

By the way. How a state calls its constitution is up to it. Perhaps it has already been noticed that the Federal Constitutional Court is based in Karlsruhe. Federal Constitutional Court.

Not the Bundesgrunsgesetzgericht!

You still have much, much to learn. Maybe you'll get used to my life experience. Laughing

Land area:
The territory of the state is a geographically delimitable part of the earth's surface (see also the preamble to the German constitution).
Citizen:
National people means the population of the state, that is, the sum of the nationals (see also with Art. 116 GG).
State power:
By contrast, state power means a stable government that effectively exercises its sovereign https://www.juraforum.de/...kon/gewalt" class="text-primary">https://www.juraforum.de/...kon/gewalt.

State "Federal Republic of Germany"

The Federal Republic of Germany is a state. (© Alta.C / Fotolia.com)

The territory of the Federal Republic of Germany consists of three dimensions: the land area, the territorial waters and the airspace. In this case, a necessary https://www.juraforum.de/.../bedingung for the allocation of a room to the national territory is the actual possibility of its controllability.

The German state territory is a https://www.juraforum.de/...undesstaat, which currently consists of 16 states (the so-called countries). A change of the partial states within the national territory is acc. Art. 29 GG [Basic Law] possible.

As state people one first designates the population of the state, ie all persons who have a fixed residence in the national territory, independently of their https://www.juraforum.de/...ionalitaet (ethnicity, origin). In the context of the three-element doctrine, therefore, it would be conceptually more accurate to speak of the citizens of the people. In fact, these are the totality of those who can participate in the status activus, ie those who can actively participate in the state (for example through elections) (see Art. 116 GG).

In the Federal Republic of Germany, state power is distributed among the https://www.juraforum.de/...egislative, the https://www.juraforum.de/.../exekutive and the https://www.juraforum.de/...judikative (so-called separation of powers, see Articles 1 (3) and 20 (3) of the Basic Law).

In the area of the legislative branch, the so-called Legislative https://www.juraforum.de/lexikon/gewalt, the organs of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat must therefore be mentioned. Thus, in the case of the https://www.juraforum.de/.../parlament, this power is the leading force in the https://www.juraforum.de/...demokratie (so-called parliamentary democracy).

In the area of the executive, the so-called executive power, the https://www.juraforum.de/...sregierung should be mentioned in particular. At its head is the https://www.juraforum.de/...deskanzler, which is the policy's https://www.juraforum.de/...ichtlinien.

As the head of state, the https://www.juraforum.de/...praesident is also a state organ, but has a more representative function.

In the area of the judiciary, the so-called Rechtsprechenden Gewalt, the https://www.juraforum.de/...ngsgericht and the five highest federal courts stand (see Art. 95 GG: https://www.juraforum.de/...richtshof/, https://www.juraforum.de/...gsgericht/, https://www.juraforum.de/...tsgericht/, Federal Finance Court, https://www.juraforum.de/...lgericht/).

This separation of powers is guaranteed within the framework of the so-called eternity clause of Art. 79 (3) Basic Law:

An amendment to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, the fundamental participation of the Länder in legislation or the principles set out in Articles 1 and 20 is inadmissible.

I quote further from the expertise:

The forced collection of contributions is an abuse

public power.

Legally competent under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany are in accordance with § Art. 1 para. 1

GG natural persons and in accordance with Art. 19 (3) GG legal persons. Legal capacity

means the ability to perceive and enforce subjective rights and continue

the ability to fulfill legal obligations.

The ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio Beitragservice is - according to its own admission - a public law,

unincorporated community institution…

It is the ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio Beitragservice so a so-called

Legal object, which is not the bearer, but the object of rights and duties, ie one

Subject to which a right relates or exists. As a legal object is the ARD

ZDF Deutschlandradio Beitrsservice therefore not independently complaining and can also

do not independently obtain or enforce a title.

The contribution service is a legal object and therefore not

the law.

This lack of legal capacity therefore causes the lack of ability to

Perception and enforcement of subjective rights and continuing ability to

Fulfillment of legal obligations.

The fees and / or fees issued by the ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio Beitragservice

Appraisal decisions are therefore also not legally viable or legally competent.

Associated with this is the lack of ability to legally effective - too

compulsory - Collection of the broadcasting fees according to the State Broadcasting State Treaty and the

legally effective commissioning of private or public-law entities

effective collection of broadcasting contributions under the State Broadcasting Treaty Agreement by and in

Name of the ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio Beitragservice.

This is also linked to the lack of effective transfer of the collection to the ARD

ZDF Deutschlandradio contribution service through the in the working group of

"The factual jurisdiction of the courts in accordance with § 1 ZPO by the law on the

Judiciary determined.

Before the ordinary courts belong according to § 13 GVG (court constitution law) the

civil litigation, family matters and voluntary matters

Jurisdiction (civil matters) and criminal matters for which the jurisdiction of either

Administrative or administrative courts or by reason of regulations

Special Courts have been appointed or licensed under federal law.

Already on account of the legal regulations for the jurisdiction of the ordinary

Jurisdiction (local courts) according to § 1 ZPO i.V.m. § 13 GVG are the ordinary courts

legally not authorized to issue arrest warrants at the request of a public law

Institution, since such a dispute is neither a bourgeois

Litigation, a family matter, matter of voluntary jurisdiction (civil cases)

is still a criminal matter within the meaning of § 13 GVG.

A public institution can't request

at the district court.

The state takes refuge here without legal basis in private law.

In addition, such a dispute is a public law dispute

of constitutional nature, since here an inadmissible breach of fundamental rights against the

Fundamental rights holders directly by public authority as a fundamental rights

of the Basic Law.

For this kind of public disputes the judicial constitution law sees no

special jurisdiction. For this reason, the fundamental right comes up here

Legal Warranty and Judicial Warranty in accordance with Article 19 (4), second sentence, Basic Law applicable to:

If someone is violated by public authority in his rights, then he has the legal recourse

open. As far as another jurisdiction is not justified, the ordinary legal process is given.

As a result, ordinary courts have jurisdiction over such disputes, but they are not

the basis of the Code of Civil Procedure, but on the basis of a corresponding organizational and

Implementation Act. Such however exists in the Federal German jurisdiction until

not today, which is why the ordinary courts, in spite of constitutional competence such

And on you go…

Essence of the article 5 GG?

Every inhabitant of this country (citizens do not exist, as the FRG is not a state)

has the fundamental right to unrestricted information from generally accessible sources.

However, any financial contribution is a hindrance because there are people who are not

have enough money to pay the fee. There's no obligation in the Basic Law that

the resident of this country would have to finance his own fundamental rights. The state and

its institutions have the duty to unconditionally uphold the fundamental rights of individuals

to guarantee. That is why they are called fundamental rights and the inhabitant is the fundamental right holder, like

the lawyers say.

The Broadcasting Treaty is invalid.

A little later it says in the expertise:

"This contradicts any collection of contributions to ensure public law

Reporting - as well as all subsumed "reports" on folk music,

Crime scenes and Rosamunde Pilcher films u.v.a. - the wording of the fundamental right to unhindered

Information from generally accessible sources and thus the Basic Law for the

Federal Republic of Germany and is in the result unconstitutional. The same applies to the

Abuse of public authority for the unconstitutional collection

Compulsory collection of these contributions. "

do not allow a corresponding federal law or authorize the countries to enact it

corresponding country laws.

… For reasons mentioned above, both the State Broadcasting Treaty and those on it are

based laws of the countries to levy broadcasting fees already by Basic Law

invalid because of ex tunc and can't generate legal consequences. They fulfill the facts of the

which can't be fulfilled, the consequences of which can't be attributed to the addressee of the rule, since the

Basic rights of the norm addressee according to Art. 1 Abs. 3 GG as directly applicable law the

to bind public power without interruption… "

The broadcasters have no right to post

cash in and the contribution service has no right to make contributions.

From now on I quoted verbatim from the expertise of the fundamental rights party because it is partly about

legal terms that I can't translate:

"The Broadcasting Treaty is therefore neither a proper law in the

Meaning of the Basic Law nor a law changing the Basic Law in its wording

Meaning of Art. 79 GG.

Art. 79 GG

(1) The Basic Law can only be amended by a law which matches the wording of the

Basic Law expressly changes or supplements.

Constitutional provisions authorized by the prime ministers of the federal states

would be such a state treaty in the range of a (the Basic Law changing) federal law

enact, do not exist. Also the legislation on legislation

In the basic law are no regulations over

License fee.

The State Treaty for Broadcasting and Telemedia (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag - RStV) is one

unconstitutional constitutional breakthrough, since it is the country's constitutional

Legislative competence is missing.

Thus the public authority itself violates the Basic Law for the Federal Republic

Germany and illegally evades its constitutional mandate to guarantee and

Protection of fundamental rights.

The information from generally accessible

Sources must be unhindered.

The Basic Law can't be required to finance public-law sources

remove. So where does the legislator take the right to do such a duty?

introduce?

The "Fathers of the Basic Law", the Parliamentary Council, has, after extensive discussion,

intentionally no provisions on broadcasting fees enshrined in the Basic Law and the

Information from generally available sources without reservation as an "unhindered

granted ".

Is not that funny?
You rely on the Basic Law, where in your opinion there's no state, so cauch no constitution (constitution) exists. How screwed is that?

The Federal Constitutional Court has established the lawfulness, is thus compliant with all laws.

What do you think, well, do you know the sack of rice that falls over in China? Laughing

The Basic Law can be found no obligation to finance public-law sources. So where does the legislator take the right to introduce such a duty?

Alas, there's no obligation? How do you get the idea that then there's no right?

There's no obligation to visit the Christmas market, but I have the right.

There's no obligation to introduce a statutory health insurance, but there's a right to do so.

Man, how messed do you argue?

If there's no obligation to collect, is there no right to do so?

Man, man, man…

Yes, just laugh… At some point, I'll have a Rolex too, laugh, as if I needed it.

What does my nickname have to do with it?
It's my hobby. Not only did I sometime have a Rolex, I have about 40 different Rolex model lying here.

From the simple to 3,000 euro to the luxury model for 68,000 euro.

Do not you have arguments anymore?

This was just a hint of fate, with their entire private fortune attached to valuables, if they want to enrich themselves ignorantly…

Can you please post if you understand what you are writing?

Do not even need internet, radio, cellphone, car.

Do you have an apartment to pay unless you are liberated.

I have never paid even a cent and I will not… Bet?

Freed? I'm free, I do not need liberation…

Yes, believe what you want… NO ONLY CENT! Starvation, they will walk, at my expense in their own theater every week, where the common man who has paid, not even allowed to participate… These are the parasites, the society and come right after the Jehovah's Witnesses… Something like that may not be supported become…

What can I not participate in?

You will be missing or sit first and then pay. If you still do not pay dan, you will sit again.

Find an enemy picture which is worthwhile. Our society has more important problems than paying 60 cents a day for 20 programs.

GEZ: Hotel operator sues for broadcasting fee - and gets right
The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the plaintiff and made it clear to http://www.bverwg.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung.php?jahr=2017&nr=66 that "the collection of the additional broadcasting fee for hotel and guest rooms and holiday apartments (lodging contribution) is only compatible with the Basic Law in those cases in which the permanent establishment owner by the provision of receiving devices or an Internet access opens up the possibility of using the public service broadcasting services in the said premises. "

Means: For rooms without TV, radio or Internet access no "GEZ" may be required. Otherwise, operators have to pay a fee of 5.83 euro - one third of the normal broadcasting fee - per room.

But should it come to the lawsuit, I must claim my right to information and that's why I have to be allowed internet access! Or do you want to refer me then in an Internet.cafe?