The German legal system is constantly evolving, and new rulings often set groundbreaking standards for future decisions. Whether in labor law, criminal law, or traffic law – current court rulings can have direct implications for your rights and obligations. In this article, we take a look at important decisions and explain what they mean for you.
Contract Law: Black-market workers are not liable for shoddy work!
On August 1, 2013, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that a client who hires a company to perform repair work under an agreement that the work will be done “off the books” (without an invoice) loses warranty rights. If the contractor performs poorly, whether it’s an auto repair or house construction, the client cannot claim defects against the contractor because “black-market work” was agreed upon.
Copyright Law: Main tenants are not liable for copyright infringements by subtenants
If a main tenant, who no longer resides in the rented apartment, provides the subtenants with the apartment and internet access, the main tenant is not liable for copyright infringements committed by the subtenants. The main tenant successfully defended themselves against a warning notice for illegal music downloads. The Cologne Regional Court ruled that the main tenant has no obligation to monitor or control subtenants.
Traffic Law: BGH rules that mud-covered boots are unsuitable for driving
If someone drives – in this case, a truck – wearing mud-covered rubber boots, they are liable if an accident occurs and the boots are the cause. In the case decided, the truck driver’s boots slipped off the clutch pedal, causing an accident. According to the BGH ruling, the resulting damage must be compensated by the driver.
Traffic Law: A driver changing lanes before a red light has a heightened duty of care and is liable for accidents!
In the case at hand, a driver realized they were in the wrong lane before a red light and changed lanes. This resulted in a traffic accident. According to the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, the driver who changed lanes was largely at fault. This was a violation of the duty of care as outlined in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act (StVO).
Travel/Contract Law: A tourist placed in substitute accommodation has the right to cancel the travel contract!
Overbooking of a booked hotel does not constitute a legally valid reason to place a traveler in substitute accommodation. The traveler can cancel the travel contract and claim compensation for lost vacation time (ruling by the Frankfurt Regional Court).
Tenancy Law: Predictable construction noise does not justify a rent reduction!
The Berlin Regional Court ruled that a tenant has no right to reduce rent if they were aware at the time of signing the rental agreement that construction noise would occur in the near future in the neighborhood.
Labor Law: Attending a job interview while on sick leave does not automatically justify dismissal!
If an employee on sick leave attends a job interview with another employer, they cannot be dismissed without further justification. The Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Regional Court ruled that the nature of the illness is decisive, as not all illnesses require someone to remain in bed.
Civil Law: Noise disturbances after 10 PM can result in fines!
Anyone who disturbs the night’s rest with loud celebrations after 10 PM risks being fined. The night’s rest must be respected, and there is no legal basis for an exception to disturb the peace once a month. This was ruled by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf.
Labor/Internet Law: Sending an email does not prove that it was received!
In a case decided by the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court, a job applicant claimed discrimination after their application was not considered. The applicant sent the application by email, but the company denied ever receiving it. The applicant could only prove the email was sent, not that it was received, which is insufficient as proof.
Internet Law: Shifting return shipping costs to consumers in case of withdrawal is legally permissible.
The Augsburg District Court ruled that there is no undue disadvantage to consumers. Sellers may require buyers to bear the return shipping costs if the value of the goods is under €40.