Description
In a judgement dated December 11, 2015 (Ref: 5 U 31/15), the Kammergericht (KG) Berlin, acting as the court of appeal, ruled that the "Uber Black" business model largely violated German competition law. The court upheld a ban sought by a Berlin taxi operator, finding Uber Black's service anti-competitive unless the rides were offered at cost price.
The core reasons for the ruling were:
- Violation of the Passenger Transport Act (PBefG): The court affirmed that Uber Black breached §49 para. 4 of the PBefG. This law requires licensed rental car operators (which Uber Black used) to only carry out bookings received at their registered place of business. Uber's system, sending requests directly to drivers via the app, violated this rule, which aims to prevent rental cars from operating like hailable taxis and thus protects the regulated taxi market.
- Constitutional Law: The KG rejected the argument that these PBefG rules violated the constitutional right to the free exercise of a profession (Art. 12 GG). It reasoned the restrictions were justified because rental car companies have fewer obligations than taxis (e.g., no fixed tariffs, no obligation to transport passengers).
- Competition Law: Offering the service above cost price was deemed an unfair competitive advantage gained by violating the PBefG. The court's specific order prohibited Uber Black from being used in Berlin for paid journeys unless the total fare did not exceed the actual operating costs (fuel, lubricants, tyre wear, cleaning, proportional maintenance).
- European Law: The court found the ban did not conflict with EU law. It classified Uber's service as fundamentally a "service in the field of transport" due to its close integration with the driving process. Such transport services are excluded from the scope of the EU Services Directive, meaning there was no violation of the freedom to provide services. The court also determined Uber could not rely on the freedom of establishment, as it was providing cross-border services from its Netherlands base without intending a permanent economic establishment in Germany.
The Kammergericht did, however, allow the case to be appealed to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).
Updates (1)
The following recent changes to this court ruling have been recorded.
- 9 April 2025
On January 29, 2019, Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled that the Uber Black app is illegal, violating the German Passenger Transport Act.
* The court found Uber Black contravened regulations by allowing drivers to accept ride requests directly, rather than through their company's business premises, as required by law.
* This rule is considered a professional practice guideline, which doesn't infringe on occupational freedom but dictates operational methods.
* The ban aligns with EU service provision laws, as transport services, like those offered by Uber, are exempt from the freedom to provide services.
* Uber's service model, including pricing and conditions, is viewed as integral to transport services.
* Uber was held responsible for violations of competition law by its partner companies and drivers.
Federal Court of Justice Ruling
- Keywords
-
sector aspects, competition, lobbying
- Actors
-
Court
- Sector
-
Transportation and storage
- Platforms
-
Uber
Sources