Civil traffic law
Civil traffic law is an area within traffic law . Above all, it includes transport liability law and transport contract law. The basic rules of the law of damages , the law of obligations and the property law apply to both areas, but with some special features of traffic law . In a broader sense, the traffic safety obligation and travel law (under the term travel contract ) are assigned to civil traffic law as special sub-areas.
Transport liability law
In addition to the general provisions of the compensation law of §§ 823 ff BGB ( Civil Code ), there are some special regulations of the StVG ( Road Traffic Act ) and the VVG ( Insurance Contract Act ). Damage claims can arise from all three laws for the injured party in a traffic accident . In the event of an accident at work , claims against the statutory accident insurance should first be checked because of the extensive range of benefits .
Use and operation
To check claims, a distinction is made between use and operation. The concept of operation goes further and should therefore be examined first. A vehicle is operated in the sense of § 7 StVG when the typical dangers of a motor vehicle have an effect. Operation does not exist if the locomotion and transport function no longer plays a role, but the vehicle is only used as a work machine. However, if the vehicle is unloaded with the help of a special charging device, it is still in operation. Motor vehicles that have been shut down are no longer in operation. In terms of insurance law, however, the broader term use is linked (see A.1.1.1. AKB). Use also exists, for example, when obstacles are removed before the vehicle can be put into operation. There is no use if there is no longer a sufficient connection with the vehicle.
A claim for damages according to § 823 BGB based on " fault liability", the basic principle of German law on damages, comes into consideration . This liability includes unlimited compensation for the damage suffered by the injured party. According to this, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable if he does not secure it properly and an unfit to drive can use it, who then causes an accident. The same applies if the owner leaves the vehicle to someone who is unable to drive (e.g. without a driver's license or under the influence of alcohol). The owner is also liable for his so-called vicarious agents (e.g. the taxi operator for his driver) according to § 831 BGB, unless the owner can prove that he has correctly selected and instructed the driver (§ 831, sentence 2 BGB) . Since the driver's fault does not have to be proven by the injured party, there is a reversal of the burden of proof that otherwise lies with the injured party.
The driver is liable for intentional and negligent causes of accidents. This is e.g. B. in the event of a violation of the visual driving requirement of § 3 StVO if this caused damage to another road user. There is no so-called attribution connection if another vehicle drives into a properly secured accident site.
If children are to blame or partly to blame for the accident, some liability exclusions apply (§§ 828,829,832 BGB). If a nine-year-old child causes an accident on a bicycle by taking the right of way for a motorist, the motorist’s liability insurance is liable for the damage caused to the child. If the parents of a child who has caused damage breach their duty to supervise, they can be held liable by the injured party (Section 832 (1) BGB). The liability of the supervisor to pay damages is excluded if the supervisor complied with his supervisory obligation according to § 832 paragraph 1, sentence 2 BGB, although damage occurred. In the case of a five-year-old driving on a sidewalk, the parents do not have to be able to intervene at any time in order to comply with their duty of supervision. The same applies to an eight- or nine-year-old who switches from the bike or sidewalk to the street.
Because of the special operational risk of a motor vehicle, there is also a “ strict liability ” in addition to fault liability based on general principles . According to this, liability can also come into consideration without fault if the damage occurred in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle or a trailer. The owner of a truck parked in the public traffic area is also liable for dangers that arise from a crane mounted on the truck during unloading, because in this case the crane and truck form a liability unit and thus a connection between the determination as a motor vehicle and a transport serving machine is available (Section 1 Paragraph 2 StVG). Liability under Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act does not apply if the dangers were caused by a vehicle not parked in the public traffic area or if the vehicle's machine is used completely independently of the vehicle's locomotion and transport function.
In principle, the injured party in a traffic accident can assert claims for damages against the owner (Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act), the driver (Section 18 (1), sentence 1 of the Road Traffic Act) and directly against the opposing motor vehicle liability insurance company (Section 115 (1) of the VVG). For this, a few conditions must be met:
- § 7 StVG does not apply in accordance with § 8 StVG if the motor vehicle can drive less than 20 km / h, the injured person was active in the operation of the motor vehicle or the trailer or items were damaged that were transported by the vehicle (with the exception of Items that a person transported carried or carried).
- The direct assertion of claims for damages according to § 115 VVG against an opposing motor vehicle liability insurance requires that the vehicle had to be insured according to §§ 1.2 PflVG ( compulsory insurance law ) and the accident was not caused intentionally (§ 103 VVG).
- In the event of an accident caused by several vehicles, an obligation to pay compensation is excluded in accordance with Section 17 Paragraph 3 StVG if the accident is due to force majeure.
If an injured party makes use of the services of a lawyer to assert his claims for damages resulting from a traffic accident, the opposing liability insurance company must pay the latter's fees. According to a study by the traffic law working group of the DAV ( German Lawyers Association ), the majority of motorists (56%) do not know that the liability insurance of the person causing the accident has to cover the legal costs of the injured party. Nevertheless, only 45% of the victims seek legal help, even though the insurance companies pay an average of 20% less compensation without legal help.
For the assertion of all claims, the lawyer needs the following documents, if they already exist:
- Expert opinion or cost estimate. The costs for an expert opinion are in the case of minor damage, e.g. B. at 840 euros, non-refundable. Here it is advisable to coordinate with the liability insurance company whether a cost estimate is sufficient or whether they will cover the costs for a traffic analysis report .
- Cost accounting of the expert
- Repair cost accounting
- Certificate of repair duration (for the assertion of downtime )
- Towing cost calculation
- Storage cost accounting
- Rental car invoice
- Receipts / receipts for items damaged in the accident
- Travel expenses from the scene of the accident home
- Information about the loss of no-claims discount from your own motor vehicle insurance
If it is not yet clear who is responsible for the accident, the name of the opposing driver, the license plate number of the opposing vehicle, the name and address of witnesses, photos of the vehicles involved in the accident and information on the exact location, time and weather conditions are helpful.
Self-inflicted accidents on the journey between home and work can, within certain limits, be recognized for tax purposes as business expenses or business expenses.
Burden of proof for damage
If there was previous damage before the accident, the injured party must prove that it had already been repaired at the time of the accident. Despite the proven course of the accident, the injured party must be able to prove for a specific damage to be compensated that this occurred at least as a definable part of the accident. The use of video material ( dashcams ) in judicial proceedings to prove the course of the accident is controversial. Some courts consider them admissible, others do not. The recording of a dashcam is permitted as an intermediary if it was only switched on for a specific occasion when the dispute had already started, since the "appropriate technical aids for effective legal prosecution" are not "categorically withheld" from citizens due to an abstract fear of general data collection may be. After a previous coercion, only events in public road traffic, but not the occupants, were recorded, which is why there was little interference with the data protection law of the person recorded and the interest of the person making the record in effective legal protection was particularly high. In a resolution dated December 1, 2015, the Landshut Regional Court declared the recordings of onboard cameras to be usable, as a distinction had to be made between a possible ban on obtaining evidence for data protection reasons and the ban on use in the process. In addition, the Art Copyright Act would only forbid the distribution and display of the recordings, not the filming itself. The general right of personality does not lead to a ban on the use of evidence here either , since filming is only a minor encroachment on fundamental rights, the identity of the drivers of the vehicles being filmed is not clarified, none systematic recording for the creation of movement profiles takes place and the recordings are repeatedly overwritten as long as there is no accident. With the OLG Stuttgart, a higher court had already considered the usability of dashcam recordings for the specific individual case as a tendency to be usable , but emphasized that a fundamental decision by the BGH was still pending. The Higher Regional Court Nuremberg also agreed that dashcam recordings could be used. With the decision of the Federal Court of Justice of May 15, 2018 (VI ZR 233/17), the fundamental usability of dashcams is recognized at least in civil matters.
Contributory negligence and liability ratios
If an injured person contributed to the accident and thus his own damage, liability is determined by a liability quota (Section 9 StVG refers to Section 254 BGB). For this purpose, the fixed proportions of responsibility incurred in the specific case of damage are determined. In doing so, it must be taken into account whether a person involved in the accident had to be more careful (e.g. when overtaking or turning left).
Limitation and forfeiture
Claims for damages generally expire within three years according to § 195 BGB. According to Section 199 (1) BGB, the limitation period begins at the end of the year in which the claims for damages arose. In accordance with Section 199 (2) of the German Civil Code, a limitation period of 30 years applies to personal injury. The statute of limitations can be by z. B. be interrupted by the acknowledgment of the debtor. It then begins to run again in accordance with Section 212 (1) BGB. The filing of a lawsuit only inhibits the deadline (Section 204 (1) number 1 BGB), i.e. H. the period does not start again, but the expiry of the period is only suspended during the legal proceedings. In addition, as a special forfeiture rule in the context of liability, Section 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the StVG must be observed, according to which the damage must be reported to the party liable for compensation within two months. If this period is culpably missed, there is a risk of loss of the claim for damages through forfeiture .
Accidents abroad or with a motor vehicle insured abroad
In the case of accidents abroad, the law of the country in which the accident happened applies (crime scene law). If both parties involved in the accident are Germans or have their habitual residence in Germany, German liability law applies (Section 40 EGBGB ).
In the event of an accident with a motor vehicle insured abroad in Germany, the injured person's lawyer can assert claims through the Deutsche Büro Grüne Karte e. V. assert. If a foreign NATO military vehicle causes the damage, the Office for Defense Burdens is the addressee for asserting claims for damages.
Accidents with unknown perpetrators
If the person who caused the traffic accident and the license plate number of his vehicle are not known, limited claims against the Verein Verkehrsopferhilfe e. V. are asserted (§§ 12 ff Compulsory Insurance Act).
Transport contract law
For the purchase, financing ( loan , leasing ), rental, repair and tuning of vehicles, the provisions of the general law of obligations , sales law , loan law and the law on work and services apply . But there are some special features.
Claims from sales law are generally to be asserted against the seller of an item. In the case of vehicles, this is usually the authorized dealer and not the vehicle manufacturer. Something different applies to the manufacturer's guarantee (see below for the guarantee).
Commitment periods to order
The Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) has adopted new vehicle sales conditions (NWVB), which are included in the purchase contracts for new vehicles as general terms and conditions (GTC) in the contract. After that, the buyer of a new car is bound to his order for three weeks. A commitment period of six weeks applies to those ordering a truck. If the customer does not accept the car, a flat-rate claim for damages of 15% of the order price is due. When buying a used car from a dealer, the buyer is bound to his order for a maximum of 10 days (two weeks for commercial vehicles).
Price information and price increases
The price for a vehicle on an online platform must be visible without looking at the "small print". The advertised price may not be placed at the end of the advertisement with reservations, such as the trade-in of an old vehicle. According to § 309 number 1 BGB of the NWVB, price increases in the first four months after the order are not permitted. After a delivery period of more than four months has expired, price increases are only permissible if the circumstances that increased the price had not yet occurred and were not foreseeable when the contract was concluded.
Material defect liability period
The liability for material defects is limited to two years according to Section VII NWVB. Some manufacturers offer longer liability for material defects or, in principle, subsequent guarantees, which are then usually limited by a maximum use of kilometers. In the case of a commercial sale of a used motor vehicle, a material defect liability of two years also applies. An exclusion of warranty for a used vehicle purchase from the dealer is ineffective according to § 475 BGB. However, liability can be reduced to one year through the sales agreement. If the commercial used car seller tries to circumvent his liability for material defects with clauses such as “no guarantee” or “bought as seen”, the basic material defect liability period of two years applies. Unless otherwise agreed, a two-year liability for material defects applies to the private sale of a used motor vehicle. In contrast to commercial sales, a contractual exclusion of warranty is permitted for private sales.
Burden of proof for material defects
In the event of a material defect occurring within six months after the vehicle has been transferred to the buyer, it is assumed in accordance with Section 476 of the German Civil Code that the item was defective when the risk was passed. This leads to a reversal of the burden of proof, since otherwise the buyer of an item has to prove that the defect already existed when the risk passed. The buyer should therefore, if possible, claim a defect within the six month period. If he wants to resell the vehicle before the conclusion of a legal dispute about the defect, he should not only secure the evidence by means of repair receipts from workshops, but, if possible, beforehand via an independent evidence procedure in accordance with Section 485 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
New or used cars
As new vehicles , only vehicles that are not used are, are undamaged, belong to the current model and are no longer manufactured than 12 months ago. Vehicles with one-day registration are no longer considered new vehicles. Manufacturer guarantees run from the day of registration.
Material defect or wear and tear
A used vehicle that has suffered an accident is also deemed to be not free from material defects within the meaning of Section 434, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) if it was professionally repaired after the accident. In contrast, normal wear and tear in a used car is not a material defect. The following defects are still considered to be material defects: Gearbox damage in a Ford with 115,000 km mileage, as the life expectancy of this part is 200,000 to 300,000 km, moisture in an eight-year-old Range Rover with 101,000 km mileage Valve spring torn off in a ten-year-old Porsche with a mileage of 122,000 km. A defective wishbone bearing in a ten-year-old BMW 750i with 240,000 km, failure of the servomotor of an air conditioning system in an eight-year-old Audi A8 with 87,500 km are not considered a material defect, but rather wear and tear.
The question of whether a previously defective exhaust system is still a material defect after an update (see exhaust scandal ) has not yet been made by the highest court. In some cases, it is argued that there is a material defect because there is a threat of the vehicle concerned being withdrawn by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA). The opposing view is of the opinion that approval should only be based on the time of purchase and that with the fulfillment of the Euro 5 standard, withdrawal is not likely in the near future. With regard to increased consumption, it is only important that the laboratory values are met at the time of purchase, even if these are not realistic, they would have been the applicable benchmark at the time of purchase.
If the used vehicle sales contract states that the vehicle is "ready to drive", the private seller does not automatically assume the guarantee (§ 443 BGB) that the vehicle will remain ready to drive for a longer period of time or a longer route after delivery.
Change of registration
In accordance with Section 13 (4) of the FZV ( Vehicle Licensing Ordinance) and as a result of an ancillary contractual obligation, the buyer is obliged to re-register the vehicle without delay.
In the event of material defects in the purchased item, the buyer initially has the right to subsequent performance. Unless otherwise agreed in the contract, the place of subsequent performance is the place of sale. For subsequent performance, the seller can choose between repair and replacement (Section 439 (1) BGB). However, the seller can refuse the choice made by the buyer for reasons of cost (Section 439 (3) BGB). A replacement delivery is generally excluded for used vehicles. If the buyer remedies the defect himself without giving the seller the opportunity to make subsequent performance, he cannot assert any further claims against the seller. If a replacement delivery fails or if it is wrongly refused by the seller, the buyer can assert his secondary rights. The same applies to a rework that fails (it is disputed whether the seller is entitled to one or two attempts), is refused by the seller or is unreasonable. If the buyer has agreed to repair a damaged paintwork on a new car and the repair fails because the paintwork damage is still visible afterwards, the buyer can therefore withdraw from the contract. Whether a software update represents a suitable and reasonable supplementary performance in the case of the so-called exhaust gas scandal is partly disputed on the grounds that a software update entails increased consumption and that long-term damage from the software update is also to be feared. The KBA (Federal Motor Transport Authority) does not yet assume any long-term damage from the update. The BGH tends in a notification decision on one of the so-called "exhaust scandal cases" that the buyer of an affected vehicle is not denied the right to a replacement delivery of a new vehicle because the manufacturer has changed models in the meantime. The seller can refuse the replacement delivery if this is associated with disproportionate costs.
Withdrawal, reduction in price, compensation
Secondary buyer rights include withdrawal from the purchase contract, reduction of the purchase price (Section 441 BGB), compensation for damages and reimbursement of expenses . Possibly. withdrawal and compensation can also be requested at the same time. Withdrawal from the contract is excluded in the case of only minor defects (Section 323 Paragraph 5, Sentence 2 BGB). A deviation of the actual fuel consumption of less than 10% from the manufacturer's information is only a minor defect. However, the standard fuel consumption guaranteed by the manufacturers is determined in a specified procedure under laboratory conditions that does not correspond to the conditions in road traffic and generally leads to more favorable consumption figures. In order to prove a material defect due to increased fuel consumption, according to the current legal situation, an expert's report would have to be based on the measurements under the conditions of this technical procedure and not on those during normal use of the vehicle. If there is an effective withdrawal from the purchase contract, the seller has to reimburse the purchase price with deduction of a usage fee and the buyer has to return the vehicle. To calculate the usage fee, a fictitious total mileage is compared with the distance actually driven by the buyer. If the court assumes a total mileage of 250,000 kilometers for a vehicle and the buyer has already driven the vehicle 50,000 kilometers during the reversal, the usage fee is 20 percent of the purchase price. In the case of the so-called exhaust gas scandal, it is said that the buyers would not have to accept any compensation for use from the purchase price reimbursement because the manufacturer acted immoral . If the buyer of a used vehicle is deceived in the advertisement with the description "full service history", it is a value-creating feature that entitles the buyer to withdraw. A car dealership must indicate that it was previously used as a rental car when offering a used car because it is a value-creating factor.
Guarantee and product liability law
In addition to the aforementioned statutory buyer rights in the event of material defects, the contractual rights from guarantee (§ 443 BGB) can apply . Claims from the guarantee are to be asserted against the person who gave the guarantee. A distinction must therefore be made between manufacturer and seller guarantees. The manufacturer generally limits warranty claims to the removal of defects. This means that claims for damages and withdrawal cannot be based on a manufacturer's guarantee. The advantage of the manufacturer's guarantee over the statutory liability for material defects is, however, that the buyer does not have to prove that the material defect already existed when the risk passed (delivery of the vehicle to him). A special case is the so-called “ mobility guarantee ”, which is often referred to as “insurance benefit”, but is not an insurance within the meaning of the Insurance Contract Act . As a rule, in addition to breakdown assistance in the narrower sense, the provision of a replacement vehicle for the repair time is also promised. Claims from the Product Liability Act only come into consideration if a person is killed or injured or something other than the vehicle is damaged as a result of the defect in the vehicle (Section 1 of the Product Liability Act). If a used vehicle is falsely advertised with the description "including manufacturer's guarantee", there is a material defect because a promised quality feature is missing. That can u. U. also open the withdrawal from the purchase contract.
If a (private) seller is not entered as a keeper in the vehicle documents, the buyer must check whether the seller is entitled to sell. Possession of the vehicle documents and the keys are not sufficient proof of a purchase in good faith. If damage occurs during a test drive, the potential buyer is also liable for slight negligence . Even a tacit limitation of liability is out of the question, at least for a private seller. The private seller of a motor vehicle is also liable to a motor vehicle dealer for false assurances. The addition in the sales contract “bought as seen” only excludes liability for defects that are visible to laypeople, but not for hidden material defects. This also applies to cases in which the seller was not aware of the material defect. However, a comprehensive disclaimer of liability for all defects not known to the seller is effective. If a commercial seller acts only as an intermediary between a private seller and a buyer, the guarantee can be excluded. If, however, it initially appears that the commercial seller is selling in his own name and the buyer is the consumer surprised and taken by surprise by the entrepreneur's intermediary position, the entrepreneur is considered the seller. If the commercial seller advances a consumer as the seller in order to sell the vehicle to the exclusion of the defects, the buyer's claims for material defects are directed against the entrepreneur.
In addition to the motor vehicle liability insurance , which in the event of damage also serves to overburden the insured but primarily to cover the injured party, the comprehensive insurance should cover the property damage of the insured. Comprehensive insurance is a case of property insurance. It can be taken out as fully comprehensive insurance or, with lower coverage, as partially comprehensive insurance. The fully comprehensive insurance also covers self-inflicted damage, provided it was not caused intentionally or through gross negligence (Section 81 Insurance Contract Act) and the damage is caused by an accident . The insurance is generally not obliged to enter into operational damage caused by a purely internal process without sudden external mechanical impact. Damage caused by wear and tear is not considered to be accidental damage, as it does not occur suddenly and as calculable damage does not belong to the typical insurance areas. The driver protection insurance is a voluntary insurance for personal injury to the driver's own fault accidents.
A fourth essential for the transport sector case of the insurance law is the traffic legal protection insurance . In Germany, it is subject to the provisions of Sections 125 to 129 of the Insurance Contract Act.
The insured person should report a traffic accident with damage to his motor vehicle liability insurer within one week ( obligation of the insured person according to E.2.1 General Conditions for Motor Vehicle Insurance , AKB 2008). If he fails to do so, the insurance company can take recourse against its policyholder (Section 6 Compulsory Vehicle Insurance Ordinance , KfzPflVV). However, this does not apply to the obligation to compensate for damage to another road user.
According to the first directive on motor vehicle liability insurance (72/166 / EEC) in the European Union, liability insurance must also be maintained for a privately parked and no longer used motor vehicle as long as the vehicle is not officially decommissioned.
- Alfred Fleischmann, Edgar Hofmann, Jürgen Lachner: Civil traffic law. Case law collection . Deutscher Anwaltverlag, 2000, ISBN 3-8240-0309-0 .
- Frank-Michael Goebel, Birgit Wilhelm-Lenz, Arnd Arnold: The new civil civil law: Standard cases after the reform of the law of obligations and damages , Deutscher Anwaltverlag, 2002, ISBN 3-8240-0560-3 .
- The traffic attorney . Bulletin of the working group traffic law of the DAV e. V.
- zfs - magazine for damage law
- Topic of traffic accidents at the Federal Statistical Office of Germany
- Compensation claims of the traffic accident victim
- Traffic accident damage. (PDF) juratexte.de - Overview: Which damage items can the injured party demand compensation for after an accident and what influence does his behavior have on it? (German law).
- Traffic accident claim overview. juratexte.de - interactive table with which you can keep track of the liability quota and amount of damage after a traffic accident in the event of a simultaneous dispute.
- Motor vehicle accident damage - reimbursement of repair costs, fictitious billing, appraisal costs, legal fees, rental car costs, compensation for loss of use, mercantile reduction in value, 130% rule
- Marburg District Court, judgment (file number 9 C 1648/02)
- OLG Koblenz, judgment (Az. 5 U 433/11)
- OLG Oldenburg, judgment (Az. 1 U 73/04)
- Decision of Cologne Higher Regional Court of February 21, 2019 - 14 U 26/18
- AG Munich, judgment of April 8, 2014, Az. 331 C 34366/13
- KG Berlin, judgment (Az. 22 U 191/11)
- OLG Hamm, judgment of March 10, 2015 - 9 U 246/13; NZV 2014, 255
- AG Munich, judgment of June 6, 2013 (Az. 343 C 4445/13)
- AG Munich, decision of August 13, 2014 (345 C 5551/14)
- AG Nienburg, judgment of January 20, 2015 - 4 Ds 155/14; beck-aktuell.beck.de
- LG Landshut, decision of December 1, 2015 (Az. 12 S 2603/15)
- Editor beck-aktuell, July 19, 2017
- Higher Regional Court Nuremberg, decision of August 10, 2017 - 13 U 851/17
- OLG Cologne, judgment of April 5th, 2019 - 6 U 179/18
- BGH, judgment of October 5, 2003 - VIII ZR 227/02
- OLG Cologne, judgment of April 5th, 2019 - 6 U 179/18
- BGH, judgment of October 10, 2007 - VIII ZR 330/06
- BGH, judgment of November 23, 2005 - VIII ZR 43/05
- OLG Stuttgart, Az. 10 U 84/06
- BGH, Az. VIII ZR 166/07
- OLG Cologne, Az. 22 U 88/03
- AG Cloppenburg, Az. 21 C 475/09
- LG Nuremberg-Fürth, Az. 7 O 9298/07
- BGH, judgment of November 22, 2006 - VIII ZR 72/06
- BGH, judgment of June 7, 2006 - VIII ZR 209/05
- BGH, judgment of February 23, 2005 - VIII ZR 100/04
- BGH, judgment of February 2, 2013 - VIII ZR 374/11
- BGH, decision of January 8, 2019 - VIII ZR 225/17
- BGH, judgment of April 14, 2010 - VIII ZR 145/09
- BGH, judgment of May 8, 2007 - VIII ZR 70/05
- AG Munich, judgment of 10.01.2018 - 142 - C 10499/17
- OLG Oldenburg, judgment of March 15, 2019 - 6 U 170/18
- Revilla, The VW exhaust scandal and its legal consequences for the buyer, in: Zeitschrift für Schadenrecht (zfs), January 2016, pp. 10-14 (11)
- Legal aspects of a “mobility guarantee” - content and regulatory practice, Der Verkehrsanwalt (DV), 2/2017, pp. 68–73
- BGH, judgment of June 15, 2016 - VIII ZR 134/15
- OLG Hamm, judgment of February 22, 2016 - 5 U 110/15
- AG Ahrensburg, judgment of December 19, 2013-2046 C 1395/12; Schleswig-Holstein advertisements 4/2014, p. 154
- OLG Hamm, judgment of May 16, 2017-2028 U 101/16
- Decision of the OLG Oldenburg from August 28, 2017 - 9 U 29/17
- AG Bonn, judgment of 04.06.2003 - 7 C 19/03
- BGH, judgment of November 22, 2006 - VIII ZR 72/06
- Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 04.09.2018, file number: C-80/17