Television Broadcast Receiving Fees Case

[20-1(A) KCCR 250, 2006Hun-Ba70, February 28, 2008]

In this case, the Constitutional Court found constitutional Article 64 of the Broadcasting Act that obligates possessors of television receivers to pay receiving fees and Article 67 Section 2 of the Act that authorizes the entrustment of collecting receiving fees to persons designated by the Korea Broadcasting System.

Background of the Case

Article 64 of the Broadcasting Act (hereinafter the "Act") prescribes that possessors of television receivers must pay receiving fees in order to gather financial resources for public broadcasting businesses. Article 67 Section 2 of the Act provides the Korea Broadcasting System (KBS) may entrust the collection of receiving fees to those designated by KBS. The petitioner herein is a possessor of a television receiver who filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of receiving fees imposed by Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) which was authorized by the KBS. With the lawsuit pending, the petitioner filed a motion to request for a constitutional review of the provision at issue of the Act, and after the motion was denied, filed this constitutional complaint.

Summary of Decision

The Constitutional Court, with the unanimous decision of Justices, handed down a ruling that Article 64 and Article 67 Section 2 of the Act (hereinafter the "Provisions") do not violate the Constitution for the following reasoning:

1.The receiving fees are charges imposed on specific groups which possess television receivers with the purpose of meeting the expenses required for public good projects, herein the public broadcasting service.

2.In so far as the Act stipulates the basic rules regarding the amount

of receiving fees, scope of obligatory payers and fee collection procedures, issues such as whether the KBS will directly perform the fee collection or entrust the work to a third party, and if so, who the entrustee will be and whether the fee collection will be conducted in collaboration with the original task of the entrustee are not essential factor with respect to the restriction of people's basic rights. The Provisions, in this sense, do not violate the principle of statutory reservation.

3.The text of Article 64 of the Act is clear as to the scope of the persons required to pay receiving fees. The proviso set forth in Article 64 authorizes the presidential decree to provide for the scope of television receivers whose registration is exempted or receiving fees are reduced or exempted under the presidential decree, but the proviso is a regulation benefiting the public, and the concreteness and clarity required for delegation legislation are relatively mitigated. In addition, it is predictable that those entitled to reduction or exemption of fees under the presidential decree will be limited to cases in which reception of television broadcasting is impossible or disrupted for a considerable period of time and where there is a need for reduction of fees for social policy objectives. Consequently, Article 64 of the Act does not violate the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

4.Receiving fees are charges imposed on possessors of television receivers, the beneficiaries of diverse broadcasting and cultural activities conducted by the KBS, for the objective of securing financial resources for public broadcasting, which serves legitimate legislative purpose. The fees can be viewed as effective and appropriate means to achieving the legislative objective in that they not only prevent the public broadcasting from being financially subordinated to the state or diverse interest groups but also provide an opportunity for public broadcasters themselves to create diverse programs under their responsibility.

Also, the fees cannot be seen as unconstitutional with the least restrictive means principle considering the amount of fees and the fact that only one set per household is subjected and that charges are

exempted in certain cases. Furthermore, the disadvantages of TV setpossessors do not outweigh the legislative cause of securing financial resources as well as obtaining independence and impartiality of public broadcasting, indicating that the fee imposition does not contradict the principle of balancing of equities.

Therefore, Article 64 does not infringe on the property rights of TV set possessors.

5.As the form of broadcast media diversified, the scope with respect to charging receiving fees has become an issue to be determined by legislators in consideration of the characteristics of each medium. Sincemedia such as digital multimedia broadcasting (DMB) - receiving computers or mobile phones are highly likely to be used for purposes other than broadcast reception, and because there is necessity for exemption of receiving fees in terms of initial stabilization and activation of broadcasting enterprises, fee immunity of such media cannot be viewed as a violation of principle of equality.