In a landmark decision dated 12 May 2026 (KZR 6/24), the Federal Court of Justice set clear limits on the admissibility of class actions in Germany and overturned the appeal judgment of Munich Higher Regional Court. In doing so, the Cartel Division essentially followed Gleiss Lutz’s line of argument and held that no structural conflict of interests may exist between the litigation funder and the claims vehicle or assignors.
In line with Gleiss Lutz’s application before the lower courts, the litigation funding agreement, which had previously been kept confidential, must now be disclosed. Munich Higher Regional Court must now examine whether the agreement gives rise to obligations on the part of the claims vehicle towards the litigation funder that result in a conflict of interests. The Federal Court of Justice also clarified the previously disputed question of whether an infringement of section 4 Act on Out-of-Court Legal Services (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz) necessarily invalidates the assignment of claims to the claims vehicle. The Court further held that bundling claims is not permissible where this would prevent the courts from providing effective legal protection. The points at issue must therefore be separated into multiple proceedings.
In the case at hand, the claimant (a claims vehicle) brought claims – assigned by 3,266 purchasers in 21 countries – exceeding EUR 500 million plus interest against the truck manufacturers. The action covered more than 70,000 individual purchases, with some pleadings running to tens of thousands of pages. The legal dispute will now be continued before Munich Higher Regional Court.
Gleiss Lutz and the team led by Dr. Ulrich Denzel and Dr. Carsten Klöppner have thus also been successful in the second landmark case on the admissibility of class actions. Gleiss Lutz had previously successfully defended a comparable class action in the cement cartel case.
With this decision, the Federal Court of Justice has reined in collective actions in Germany and established clear requirements for the structuring of such proceedings. The decision is in line with rulings from courts in other jurisdictions where collective actions or class actions have long been recognised and are widely used.
Counsel for Mercedes Benz Group AG:
Winter Thürk (Karlsruhe): Dr. Thomas Winter (representation before the Federal Court of Justice)
The following Gleiss Lutz team led by Dr. Ulrich Denzel (partner), Dr. Carsten Klöppner (counsel, both Competition/Antitrust) and Dr. René Kremer (counsel, Litigation; all three lead, all Stuttgart) advised Mercedes Benz Group AG:
Dr. Lukas Schultze-Moderow (partner, Hamburg), Dr. Simon Wagner (counsel, Stuttgart), Dr. Simon Fischer (Munich, all Litigation), Helen Haffner, Yannick Edelmann (both Stuttgart), Moira Boennen (Hamburg), Yvonne Rauschenberger (Stuttgart, all Competition/Antitrust).
In-house counsel (Stuttgart): Dr. Iris Kemmler (Associate General Counsel), Ute Pazer
Forward
