Obligation to return
for
Uber.
Obligation to return
for
Uber.
from
Can an Uber driver simply wait nearby after dropping off a passenger until the next order arrives? Or does he have to return to the place of business? The Federal Court of Justice has now finally answered this long-disputed question.
What is the obligation to return and why does it exist?
Rental cars and cabs are regulated differently in Germany. While cab drivers are allowed to wait for customers at stops, a strict rule applies to rental cars: after each completed journey, the vehicle must return to the place of business immediately. The only exception is if a new order is received before or during the journey.
This regulation is intended to prevent rental cars from becoming de facto cabs by driving around the city looking for passengers. The cab industry is subject to stricter requirements, such as collective bargaining and transportation obligations, and should not be put at a competitive disadvantage by the obligation to return.
What happened on Breslauer Platz in Cologne?
On January 19, 2023, a driver working for a subcontractor of the ride-hailing company Uber dropped off a passenger at Breslauer Platz in Cologne. Instead of driving to the company headquarters immediately afterwards, the vehicle stopped there. A board member of the plaintiff cab cooperative observed this and placed a test order via the Uber app, which was immediately accepted. Even after this order was canceled, the driver remained on site until 10:22 a.m. before logging out of the app. The cab cooperative saw this behavior as a clear violation of the obligation to return and successfully took legal action against it for violation of competition law . Uber appealed to the Federal Court of Justice.
How did the Federal Court of Justice rule?
The Federal Court of Justice has ruled Judgment of 03.06.2026 – Ref. I ZR 123/25 rejected Uber’s appeal and thus confirmed the injunction issued by the lower courts. The company was ordered to refrain from not immediately returning to its place of business or interrupting its journey after completing a ride order.
What is interesting about this decision is that Uber is not only liable for the conduct of its own drivers, but also for violations by subcontractors and their drivers. This means that the platform cannot escape liability by having the actual journeys carried out by third-party companies.
Is the obligation to return still up to date?
In the appeal proceedings, Uber raised several fundamental objections – to the constitutionality of the regulation as well as to its compatibility with European law. None of these objections were ultimately successful.
The appeal argued that the forced empty runs for the return journey to the company headquarters were harmful to the climate and had to be measured against the constitutional requirement of climate protection. The Federal Court of Justice recognized this argument as legally relevant, but was not convinced that it was unconstitutional. It pointed out that the legislator had deliberately retained the obligation to return in 2021, taking climate protection into account as a balancing factor and creating flexibility options for large conurbations. The court also pointed out that abolishing the rule would also have consequences for the climate: drivers would then have to circle around attractive stops, which would put additional strain on inner-city traffic.
ECJ ruling does not apply here.
Uber also invoked European competition law and a ruling by the European Court of Justice from 2023, which had classified a license restriction for car rental trips in Spain as incompatible with the European freedom of establishment. However, the Federal Court of Justice clarified that this Union law does not apply in this case, as the facts of the case do not have a cross-border element. Both parties are German companies and the journey took place in Cologne. The fact that Uber may be based abroad as an intermediary platform does not change this, as the relevant service here – the ride itself – was purely domestic.
Conclusion
The obligation to return is intended to protect cab companies from competitors who are not subject to the same strict requirements and would therefore generally have a competitive advantage.
The Federal Court of Justice has not decided whether the obligation to return in 2026 is still proportionate. It has merely stated that it is not convinced that it is unconstitutional.
While the lower court had judged the regulation to be in line with European law, the Federal Court of Justice corrected this reasoning. European law was not applicable at all, as there was no foreign connection. This is more elegant in terms of appeal law, but does not resolve the substantive issue.
The question of whether a rental car company from another ECJ member state wishing to operate in Germany could use the ECJ ruling from 2023 to take action against the obligation to return remains unanswered.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
