More than 300 people had turned to the Constitutional Court (VfGH) because they considered the ORF contribution for all households, which has been in force since the beginning of this year, to be unlawful. The Supreme Court has now suspended the complaint and says that an investigation in its current form is “inadmissible”.
With the exception of households that were previously exempt from the GIS fee, €15.30 per household has been due since 1 January. Since then, it no longer matters whether there is a television or radio in your own four walls. It became cheaper for most people who previously paid the device-related GIS fee. But hundreds of thousands of households had to pay for the first time.
The ORF contribution can now hardly be avoided, which, however, irritates many Austrians. 331 of them therefore filed a so-called individual mandate to examine the law before the Constitutional Court, because they consider the law implemented by the government to be unconstitutional.
The longer way to file a complaint is ‘reasonable’
Whether this is actually the case will probably not be answered for a long time. The highest court dismissed the order on Thursday as “inadmissible”. The Constitutional Court stated in its statement that another legal course of action would be reasonable. This means that applicants, the majority of whom do not own a television, can apply for payment from ORF-Betrags-Service GmbH (OBS; formerly GIS) and request a decision on the determination of their ORF contribution without having to trigger criminal proceedings.
According to the Constitutional Court, this decision makes it possible to file a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG). The decision of the BVwG can in turn be submitted to the Constitutional Court.
ORF law really against equality?
The applicants had argued in their individual application that the law regulating the ORF contribution is contrary to equality, because it does not distinguish whether the individuals who are liable to contribute also use the services of the ORF. It violates the right to integrity of property, because there is no sufficient distinction between participation and non-participation in the ORF offer.
It was also argued that legal action via the BVwG was unreasonable because of the large amount of time and money involved. The Constitutional Court did not share this opinion. The VfGH did not comment on the content of the ORF contribution.
Source: Krone
I am Wallace Jones, an experienced journalist. I specialize in writing for the world section of Today Times Live. With over a decade of experience, I have developed an eye for detail when it comes to reporting on local and global stories. My passion lies in uncovering the truth through my investigative skills and creating thought-provoking content that resonates with readers worldwide.
