Vergiftete Urteile zum Rundfunkbeitrag (Interview RA Gebauer)

A recent ruling on the broadcasting fee disregards the guidelines of a higher court, and the court simultaneously seeks to prevent this ruling from being reviewed on appeal. Attorney Carlos A. Gebauer explains the situation in this interview. He also filed a declaratory judgment action on April 20, 2026, against the election of Director General Himmler. He explains the legal background of this case to the public for the first time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STOP: Please do not send emails to my university address! This address is exclusively for official business. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To the webinar on game-theoretical negotiation: https://www.rieck-verlag.de/verhandlu... Would you like to become a channel member? I'm excited:    / @profrieck   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ►MORE INFORMATION FROM TEAM RIECK: We're talking about a strategic masterpiece of the judiciary that leaves citizens completely in the lurch. It concerns the broadcasting fee and the latest ruling from Mannheim. With public broadcasting, we're dealing with a "Vatican within the constitutional order," a system that has successfully immunized itself against any oversight. The strategy behind last year's ruling in Leipzig is brilliant, but insidious. While the Federal Administrative Court theoretically opened the door to lawsuits alleging a lack of balance, it simultaneously set the bar so high that no one can reach it. Plaintiffs are required to provide evidence that is practically impossible to furnish – a classic case of impossible gatekeeping. The Mannheim court has now taken up this issue and tightened the screws even further: They simply claim that the bar is set so high that no one can reach it anyway, and therefore everything is somehow fine, without presenting any evidence, while simultaneously blocking the possibility of an appeal. This is a strategic dead end par excellence. What's particularly interesting is the nature of this entity: Broadcasting acts as a "Schrödinger's legal subject." It's a public authority when it comes to collecting fees, but a private entity protected by fundamental rights when someone wants to review content. It cherry-picks the strategic advantages from both worlds. The real crux of the matter, however, remains the democratic deficit. If we pay a "contribution," a logical system dictates that we should have the right to vote. But here, everyone pays, while a small, self-governing elite makes decisions over the heads of the fee payers, even in the election of the director general. This is where the new lawsuit comes in: While those who pay the broadcasting fee don't have a direct claim to services (as fee payers did), they do have a right to elect the governing bodies. However, the director general was elected indirectly. This election is now being challenged, and a new election procedure is being demanded in which those who pay the fee can vote directly. ►MORE FROM CHRISTIAN RIECK: ○Instagram:   / profrieck   ○Twitter:   / profrieck   ○LinkedIn:   / profrieck   #profrieck #broadcastingfee #ruling Note: The links provided may be affiliate links, for which I receive a commission. Disclaimer: This is an educational channel, not a financial or medical channel. The content of my videos and podcasts is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial or medical advice or a personal recommendation.