Federal Review Board – Definition, Legal Basis and Responsibilities
The Federal Review Board holds a central position in Germany in relation to youth media protection and public order. In a legal context, the term primarily refers to the Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Young Persons (BPjM) which operates under several statutes and regulations. This article comprehensively presents all legal aspects, responsibilities, procedures, and the significance of the Federal Review Board, including the current legal situation.
Legal Background and Statutory Foundations
Legal Foundation of the Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Young Persons
The legal foundation for the Federal Review Board is the Act on the Dissemination of Publications and Media Content Harmful to Young Persons (GJS/MMStV), which has been known since 1 April 2003 as Youth Protection Act (JuSchG) . The regulations regarding the establishment, responsibilities, and procedures of the Federal Review Board are set out in particular in Sections 18 to 24 JuSchG.
Historical Development
The Federal Review Board was established in 1954 as part of post-war youth protection regulations. Initially, its aim was to restrict the distribution of harmful written material and thus protect children and adolescents from harmful, violent, sexualized or otherwise development-impairing content. With media developments, the scope expanded beyond printed materials to include audiovisual and electronic media.
Organization and Structure of the Federal Review Board
Organizational Structure
The Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Young Persons is an independent supreme federal authority based in Bonn. It reports directly to the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. The BPjM is composed of the chairperson, permanent and non-permanent associate members, and an administrative office.
Composition and Committees
- The chairperson is appointed by the Federal President on recommendation of the Federal Government.
- Permanent associate members are appointed upon recommendation from the federal states.
- Non-permanent associate members are proposed by recognized independent youth welfare organizations, the churches, the German Medical Association, as well as other social groups.
- The composition is based on pluralism to ensure objective and diverse assessments.
Responsibilities and Areas of Competence
Main Task: Indexing Media Harmful to Young Persons
The core responsibility of the Federal Review Board is the review and indexing of media contentthat may impair the development of children or young people (§ 18 JuSchG). The aim is to protect minors from being exposed to such media.
Types of Media
Media subject to assessment by the Federal Review Board include:
- Print media (books, magazines, comics)
- Image and sound carriers (CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays)
- Computer and video games
- Internet content (websites, streaming services)
Protected Interests
Mainly, content is reviewed that is likely
- to incite racial hatred
- to glorify or trivialize violence
- to endanger the moral wellbeing of children or young people (e.g. via pornography)
- to incite to criminal acts
Indexing Procedure
Right of Application
An indexing procedure can be initiated by various parties, including
- youth authorities of the federal states
- recognized independent youth welfare organizations
- the Federal Agency for Child and Youth Media Protection
- individual federal ministries
Review Process
The procedure consists of several steps:
- Initiation of the Review Procedure – After a request is made, the Federal Review Board decides whether to initiate a procedure.
- Hearing of the Parties Involved – in particular, providers and, if applicable, authors of the media are heard.
- Decision by the Decision-Making Panel – a committee of the BPjM decides on the inclusion in the list of media harmful to young persons.
- Justification and Publication – The decision is delivered to the parties involved and published in the list of media harmful to young persons.
Legal Consequences of Indexing
Indexing entails wide-ranging legal consequences:
- Public advertising, display, and mail order to minors is prohibited
- Points of sale are subject to special due diligence obligations
- Indexed media may not be named or illustrated in the media (prior restraint and advertising ban, so-called exclusion zone)
Other Functions
In addition to indexing, the Federal Review Board also handles the review of advertising and informational materials, provides recommendations for the interpretation of the Youth Protection Act, and acts in an advisory capacity.
Legal Protection and Supervision
Legal Remedies
Against decisions of the Federal Review Board, the right of appeal to the administrative courts is open. Affected providers or authors can thus take legal action against indexing decisions.
Review and List Management
As a rule, indexing is lifted after 25 years, unless a reassessment is necessary (Section 18 (7) JuSchG). The list of media harmful to young persons is continuously updated and is available only to relevant authorities and authorized entities.
Relationship to Other Institutions and Legal Integration
Federal Agency for Child and Youth Media Protection
The Federal Review Board works with other organizations such as the Federal Agency for Child and Youth Media Protection , which also fulfills functions relating to prevention and advice in youth media protection.
International Context
The decisions and standards of the Federal Review Board are applied within the context of European and international youth protection systems and are specifically taken into account in the cross-border movement of goods and media.
Criticism and Reforms
The work of the Federal Review Board is regularly subject to public and professional debate. Reforms are particularly concerned with adapting to the challenges of digitalization, new media formats, and international media markets.
Summary
The Federal Review Board fulfills a legally regulated central protective function in connection with media content that is harmful to minors, regardless of the type of medium. Its responsibilities, procedures, and the legal consequences of indexing are detailed in the Youth Protection Act. Indexing is intended to prevent minors’ access to content that is developmentally impairing or harmful and involves far-reaching restrictions for providers and the trade of such content. Legal remedies against decisions ensure the observance of the rule of law, while ongoing development and legal adaptation ensure that the Federal Review Board also responds to current media developments.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the indexing procedure of the Federal Review Board operate legally?
The indexing procedure by the Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Young Persons (BPjM) is regulated in Sections 18 et seq. of the Youth Protection Act (JuSchG). The procedure is initiated either upon application by an authority, a supervisory youth organization, or ex officio. The BPjM initially examines whether there are actual indications of a threat to minors. Prior to a possible indexing, the manufacturer or publisher of the media is given an opportunity to comment (hearing procedure, Section 21 JuSchG). The final decision is usually made by the 12-member body of the BPjM, with external experts—such as from education or psychology—also being consulted. The decision is made in writing and must be substantiated. Affected companies or individuals may file an objection against the indexing decision within two weeks and, if necessary, bring an action before the administrative court. This ensures a high degree of the rule of law and procedural fairness.
Is the work of the Federal Review Board subject to judicial oversight?
Yes, the decisions of the BPjM are subject to full judicial oversight by the administrative courts. Affected parties may file an objection within one month of notification of the indexing decision in accordance with Sections 68 et seq. VwGO and, after an unsuccessful objection, may bring an action before the competent administrative court. In the context of challenging proceedings, the court examines both the observance of formal requirements and the substantive assessment of the endangerment to minors. Case law, particularly that of the Federal Administrative Court, has repeatedly clarified the requirements for the justification and assessment of evidence by the BPjM. The guarantee of the right to be heard and compliance with the principle of proportionality is also regularly subject to judicial scrutiny.
What are the legal consequences of indexing for content and providers?
Once indexing has occurred, there are extensive advertising and distribution restrictions for the affected medium (§ 15 JuSchG). Indexed media may not be made accessible to children and adolescents. In particular, sale and mail order is permitted only to adults, and advertising, public display, or presentation are also prohibited. For telemedia (especially websites, social networks, etc.), special obligations apply with regard to technical age verification and access restriction according to § 24 JuSchG. Violations are treated as administrative offences under § 28 JuSchG and may result in substantial fines. Indexing is entered in publicly accessible lists, which can have a significant practical impact on market presence and potential business partners for providers in particular.
Is subsequent removal from the list possible and how is this process structured?
Subsequent removal from the list (“delisting”) can occur automatically after the 25-year period, or earlier upon application for removal or amendment pursuant to Section 18 (8) JuSchG, for example if the media content has changed or the original reasons for indexing are no longer applicable. After the application is submitted, the BPjM again examines the legal requirements and conducts an assessment taking into account current social developments and values. The affected parties are to be involved accordingly. If removal from the list is denied, the route to the administrative courts is again open.
What legal standards does the Federal Review Board apply when assessing harmful content for minors?
The legal standards are derived from Section 18 (1) and (2) JuSchG. Media are considered harmful to minors if they are likely to endanger the development of children or adolescents or their upbringing to become responsible and community-minded individuals. Particularly relevant are the areas of protection against “glorification of violence,” “brutalizing depictions,” “immoral content,” “glorification of drug abuse,” or “discriminatory or inciting content.” The BPjM is fundamentally bound by basic rights, especially freedom of expression and artistic freedom, but must carefully weigh youth protection against the affected fundamental rights in each individual case (proportionality review).
What is the role of public and third-party interests in the indexing procedure?
Within the scope of the legal procedure, not only the interests of providers are considered, but also any objections from associations, parent initiatives, or other community groups. Through its composition of federal and state representatives and external experts, the BPjM takes into account the public interest in effective youth media protection. However, the procedure itself is not public; all deliberations and decision-making are confidential to minimize incentives for further dissemination of the indexed content (“Streisand effect”).
Are there any special features in the indexing procedure for telemedia and digital content?
There are additional special provisions for telemedia: Age verification requirements are particularly strict here, as stipulated by Section 24 JuSchG. The BPjM works closely with the state media authorities in assessment, which may also have primary responsibility regarding the implementation of technical protection measures. Legal enforcement is often complicated by the international nature of digital content, which is why international cooperation (including INHOPE) and the possibility of network blocking (Section 24 (5) JuSchG) are playing an increasingly important role. Ultimately, however, youth protection objectives remain the same as with traditional media.
How does the Federal Review Board’s procedure differ from general criminal law confiscation?
The indexing procedure is an administrative law process with a preventive youth protection objective. Criminal confiscation procedures are directed against criminal content and are conducted by law enforcement authorities and courts. While indexed media may still be accessed by adults, confiscated media must be completely withdrawn from circulation. The two procedures may overlap but have different legal consequences and are based on separate legal frameworks.
