HRT charged the entrepreneur a subscription for computers even though he could have been exempted from that obligation

I read on one portal about paying a subscription to HRT, where entrepreneurs are not very familiar with their rights. What is worse, judging by the complaints of people, even HRT’s inspectors (at least some of them) do not make an effort to inform entrepreneurs about their rights.

Thus, one entrepreneur writes that he has several computers that are used exclusively for business. And in the Law on HRT (Article 34, paragraph 1), it states that ‘anyone who owns or possesses a radio and television receiver or another device for receiving radio or audiovisual programs (hereinafter: receiver) in the territory of the Republic of Croatia covered by the transmission signal is obliged to pay a monthly fee to HRT…’. Other devices include computers, portable communication devices for receiving audio signals or audiovisual signals, such as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, etc.

So, the inspector knocked on the door of a small company. The entrepreneur let him in, probably convinced in advance that he had nothing to hide since they do not have a television in the office. But he was mistaken. The inspector went around all the desks, saw that there were computers on them, told the entrepreneur that they are also considered receivers, and the owner of the company signed everything that the inspector listed as receivers.

There are exceptions

After that, the entrepreneur received bills for the subscription for the past few months, and HRT referred to the aforementioned Article 34, paragraph 1. This paragraph, as we can see, generally states that everyone is obliged to pay a subscription. However, it is interesting that HRT did not refer to the same article, but to paragraph 4, which specifically concerns the entrepreneur’s company. Namely, this paragraph specifically states that ‘legal entities, associations without legal personality, craftsmen, and other natural persons engaged in independent activities pay a monthly fee for each receiver in the amount determined by Article 35, paragraph 2 of this Law, unless otherwise provided by law’.

So, why did HRT not refer to paragraph 4, which concerns companies, but treated the company (legal entity) the same as a natural person (paragraph 1)? Simply because the key words of that paragraph 4 are: ‘unless otherwise provided by law’! Aha, that actually means something! It means that we do not need any cleverness here; there are exceptions that are exempt from paying the subscription under certain conditions. In that case, HRT would have to consider those conditions and perhaps exempt the company from paying the subscription. And it probably would have.

Namely, those conditions for exemption from paying the subscription are mentioned in Article 36, paragraph 2, which states: ‘Persons (i.e., legal entities, editor’s note) from Article 34, paragraph 4 of this Law are exempt from the obligation to pay a monthly fee for other devices for receiving radio or audiovisual programs (computers, portable communication devices, etc.) that are used exclusively for the purpose of conducting activities, as well as publishers of radio and television for receivers that are used exclusively for monitoring their own broadcasted program.’

The inspector should have said everything

The matter is clear. The entrepreneur could have simply stated that the computers registered by the inspector are used exclusively for the business the company is engaged in and that they do not serve as audiovisual receivers. In that case, he would have been exempt from the subscription. That is precisely why HRT did not refer to Article 34, paragraph 4 (which specifically treats legal entities) because then it would have to check what those computers are used for. It was simpler to refer to Article 34, paragraph 1, which states that all those who have a receiver are obliged to pay the subscription.

But that is not all. The inspector should have informed the entrepreneur of all the legal options available to him, just as a police officer should inform a driver he is penalizing of the legal options he can utilize.

I am not saying that all inspectors are like that, but it is evident that there are those whose goal is to find violators of the Law on HRT by any means. But they would not do it that way if they did not have at least tacit support from their superiors.

POST SCRIPTUM

In addition to legal entities, natural persons can also be exempt from paying the HRT subscription. Thus, blind and deaf-blind persons with 100% disability, war veterans, and persons undergoing kidney dialysis will be fully exempt from the subscription. Some may be exempt from paying 50%, namely those with severe muscle diseases (dystrophy, paralysis, paraplegia, etc.), deaf persons, and retirees whose pension does not exceed 199.08 euros. In my opinion, deaf persons should also be exempt from paying the full amount of the HRT subscription.