Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 39 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 Court to any authority from these democratic countries to the effect that the use of licence fees to fund the public broadcaster under a system of law that guarantees editorial independence is a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The Report of the Independent Review Panel on the future funding of the BBC indicated that funding the public broadcaster through television licence fees remained the most viable option if public broadcasting was to remain in existence. It said at p 137: “The best means of funding such broadcasting yet devised is a licence fee. However, broadcasting which the market will not provide may (almost by definition) be broadcasting that is not very popular. At least, it will not necessarily be the kind of “lowest common denominator” which can command the largest audiences. And people naturally resist the proposition that they should pay for programmes that they do not wish to watch. Hence we have a debate which veers dangerously between the purist view of public service broadcasting, the so-called “Himalayas” view, which has it just producing programmes at the top end of the market, and the impure view, which interprets, “public service” as potentially embracing any broadcasting, however populist, which a public broadcaster chooses to put on the air. We have not resolved this conundrum, perhaps because it is unresolvable. We do believe that public service broadcasting however defined, can play an important role in the competitive and complex broadcasting environment of the multi-channel, digital future. There is good reason to suppose that the market, left to itself, will not provide the broadcasting which our society wishes to foster. Public service broadcasting exists to service the community by providing distinctive programmes which inform, educate and entertain. It can help to ensure that the benefits of the information age are available to all at a reasonable cost and that viewers and listeners have access to quality services which cater for a wide range of interests. In all these respects, it can correct the tendency of the market to pull too far in the opposite direction.” Each applicant failed to show that the use of a licence tax as a method of funding the ZBC as a public broadcaster under the Act, with its attendant condition on the possession of receivers, is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Countries like Germany which