Car Rental Conditions Partly Unlawful – Return Requirement Upheld

The Administrative Court (Düsseldorf) has found several conditions imposed by the City of Düsseldorf on a car rental licence to be disproportionate in a dispute concerning a car rental permit – while at the same time confirming central regulations such as the return requirement and emphasising their constitutionality and compatibility with European law.

What was the dispute about?

The Administrative Court (Düsseldorf) (Az. 6 L 3466/24) decided by means of adecision dated 25 April 2025on the lawfulness of numerous ancillary conditions attaching to a car rental licence. At its core, the issue concerned the question of which administrative requirements are legally permissible, in particular against the background of the fundamental right to freedom of profession (Art. 12 GG) and the European law right of establishment (Art. 49 AEUV).

The applicant – a car rental company – challenged numerous ancillary conditions of a new licence for the operation of ten rental vehicles. In doing so, it applied for the restoration of the suspensive effect of its objection by way of interim relief. The court granted the application in part.

Core findings of the court

1. Return requirement lawful:
The statutory return requirement for rental vehicles (§ 49 Abs. 4 PBefG) is neither unconstitutional nor contrary to European law. It serves to distinguish rental vehicles from taxi services, protects the functionality of this heavily regulated system and serves for orderly use of public space. The court emphasises: the return requirement is proportionate and does not unduly burden car rental companies.

2. Lawfulness of most conditions:
A large number of the challenged ancillary conditions – for example regarding documentation of orders, the keeping of shift sheets or the obligation to switch electronic devices to German during inspections – were recognised as lawful. These measures are suitable and necessary to ensure administrative supervision and to guarantee the operational viability of the enterprise.

3. Partly unlawful conditions:
However, the court declared three ancillary conditions to be presumably unlawful and, to that extent, restored the suspensive effect of the objection:

• • No. 12:Vague reporting obligation concerning 'all changes in connection with the licence'
  • No. 17:Obligation to authorise mediation platforms to pass on data to the authority
  • No. 18:Obligation to report ongoing court and administrative offence proceedings in an unspecified manner

These requirements either fail to satisfy the principle of specificity or exceed the statutory authority of the licensing authority.

Legal assessment

The court conducted a comprehensive examination of the compatibility of the ancillary conditions with the Passenger Transport Act (PBefG), administrative procedure law and higher-ranking constitutional and Union law. It made clear that the authorities are empowered under § 15 Abs. 3 PBefG to impose conditions, provided that these serve the safety and efficiency of the enterprise and are proportionate.

It was also acknowledged that conditions for effective administrative supervision are permissible, even if they merely repeat statutory obligations – provided there is a concrete reason to clarify them.

Recommendation for enterprises in the car rental industry

Car rental companies should carefully review their licence decisions and actively engage with any ancillary conditions. Whilst the decision confirms the far-reaching powers of the licensing authorities – for example in the supervision of operations, personnel and documentation – it also sets clear boundaries: blanket, vague or disproportionate conditions are open to challenge.

Enterprises facing comparable decisions should obtainexpert legal advicefrom AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte, in particular if there are doubts as to the specificity or statutory basis of the conditions. In appropriate cases, interim relief can be an effective means of provisionally suspending burdensome regulations.