Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
784.401 RTVVORTV CH

Art. 67b Ordinanza del 9 marzo 2007 sulla radiotelevisione (ORTV) - Importo del canone

ORTV; Titolo quarto: Canone radiotelevisivo; Capitolo 2: Canone per le imprese
Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (112 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 67b ORTV · Importo del canone

La cifra d’affari annua minima che determina l’obbligo di pagare il canone per le imprese ammonta a 500 000 franchi.

Il canone annuo per un’impresa ammonta, in base al livello di cifra d’affari, a:Cifra d’affari in franchiCanone in franchi a. Livello 1 [tab] da 500 000 a 749 999 160 b. Livello 2 [tab] da 750 000 a 1 199 999 235 c. Livello 3 [tab] da 1 200 000 a 1 699 999 325 d. Livello 4 [tab] da 1 700 000 a 2 499 999 460 e. Livello 5 [tab] da 2 500 000 a 3 599 999 645 f. Livello 6 [tab] da 3 600 000 a 5 099 999 905 g. Livello 7 [tab] da 5 100 000 a 7 299 999 1 270 h. Livello 8 [tab] da 7 300 000 a 10 399 999 1 785 i. Livello 9 [tab] da 10 400 000 a 14 999 999 2 505 j. Livello 10 [tab] da 15 000 000 a 22 999 999 3 315 k. Livello 11 [tab] da 23 000 000 a 32 999 999 4 935 l. Livello 12 [tab] da 33 000 000 a 49 999 999 6 925 m. Livello 13 [tab] da 50 000 000 a 89 999 999 9 725 n. Livello 14 [tab] da 90 000 000 a 179 999 999 13 665 o. Livello 15 [tab] da 180 000 000 a 399 999 999 19 170 p. Livello 16 [tab] da 400 000 000 a 699 999 999 26 915 q. Livello 17 [tab] da 700 000 000 a 999 999 999 37 790 r. Livello 18 [tab] 1 000 000 000 e oltre 49 925.

← Art. 67a ORTV Ordinanza del 9 marzo 2007 sulla radiotelevisione (ORTV) - Offerte con una portata editoriale limitata Art. 67c ORTV →

Ti chiedi come si applica questa disposizione alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa norma insieme alla giurisprudenza, ai commentari e alle disposizioni correlate in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (10)

A-628/2023 (Art. 70 Abs. 1 RTVG i.V.m. Art. 67b Abs. 1 RTVV)
Company Levy for Broadcasting Upheld
Cited as the legal basis for the obligation to pay the company levy for radio and television, and thus for rejecting the appeal.
A-2323/2023 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Company Challenges Radio and Television License Fee Assessment
Defines the specific tariff categories and corresponding levy amounts based on company turnover.
A-2570/2022 (Art. 67b al. 2 ORTV)
Company Challenges Radio and Television License Fee for Violating Fiscal Legality and Equality
The court partially admitted the appeal because this provision was found to be unconstitutional, although it was ordered to continue to be applied for reasons of proportionality and legal certainty.
A-4741/2021 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Radio and Television Company Fee Violates Equal Treatment Principle
Declared unconstitutional in the present application cases.
A-1138/2021 (Art. 67b Abs. 1 RTVV)
Entrepreneur's Radio/TV License Fee Not Waived Despite COVID-19 Closure
This provision defines small companies with a turnover below Fr. 500,000 as exempt from the fee.
A-1138/2021 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Entrepreneur's Radio/TV License Fee Not Waived Despite COVID-19 Closure
This provision establishes the tiered fee structure based on company turnover, which was used to determine the specific amount owed.
A-3116/2022 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Broadcasting Levy Upheld Despite Misinformation Claims
Cited as the provision that determines the tariffs for the company levy, and its current, refined version is deemed legally sound.
A-3116/2022 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV (in the version effective since January 1, 2021))
Broadcasting Levy Upheld Despite Misinformation Claims
The court confirmed the validity of this provision as it now includes 18 tariff levels, addressing previous concerns about overly broad categories.
A-6177/2020 (Art. 67b cpv. 1 ORTV)
Broadcasting Fee upheld for VAT-registered businesses above turnover threshold.
It establishes that the minimum annual turnover for enterprises to be liable for the fee is CHF 500,000.
A-1378/2019 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Broadcasting Fee Disproportionate Due to Tiered Structure
The court found this provision to be unconstitutional regarding the principle of equal treatment in the specific application to the appellant, but did not refuse its application due to reasons of legal certainty and ongoing financing.