Return obligation confirmed – VSPV demands statutory clarification.

The Federal Court of Justice, with its judgment of June 3, 2026, not only confirmed the return obligation for rental cars, but also left central legal questions unresolved. In the proceedings I ZR 123/25, the First Civil Senate rejected the appeal of a defendant company and declared the regulation in § 49 Absatz 4 Satz 3 of the Passenger Transport Act constitutional. However, the court did not undertake a review of Union law, as it concerned a purely national matter.

Beyond the already decided individual case, the EU-law dimension of the return obligation comes into focus. The Senate clarified that an EU-law assessment in cross-border contexts remains open. Thus it remains unclear how the provision would be assessed in cases in which companies or service providers have a cross-border connection.

Reference to previous case law

With regard to constitutional classification, the court referred to its line following a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court from 1989. Even when taking into account the amendment to the Passenger Transport Act of 2021, the legislator has not exceeded its margin of maneuver. The return obligation thus does not unlawfully interfere with the freedom to practice one's profession.

However, what was not confirmed was the reasoning of the lower court, which had referred to the freedom of establishment in light of the European Court of Justice decision “Prestige and Limousine.” The Federal Court of Justice accordingly clarified that this EU-law assessment was not decisive for the concrete proceedings.

Political pressure to act grows

The Association of Private Commercial Road Passenger Transport in North Rhine-Westphalia interprets the ruling as a confirmation of the regulatory separation between taxi transport tied to the public interest and market-oriented rental car traffic. At the same time, the association notes that a lasting safeguarding of this separation cannot rely solely on the return obligation.