GE: BGH Prohibits Disconnection of E-Car Battery by Land-lords

Nov 4, 2022 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter BGH), which is responsible for commercial tenancy law, was asked to rule on the admissibility of a general terms and conditions clause in a tenancy agreement that would allow landlords to remotely disconnect e-car batteries. The court declared the GTC in question invalid and clarified that blocking an e-car battery would render the e-vehicle unusable as a High-Value Asset.

A consumer protection association had brought an action against a French bank for the discontinuation of a general terms and conditions clause in the leasing of batteries for electric vehicles. The defendant had been renting out batteries for electric vehicles purchased or leased by its customers. For this purpose, the bank used so-called General Terms and Conditions for Battery Rental, which allowed the bank, as the lessor, to block the charging of car batteries in the event of an extraordinary contract termination after giving notice of termination.

In the opinion of the BGH, the clause at issue constituted a one-sided contractual arrangement by which the defendant abusively tried to enforce their own interests and did not take the tenant's interests into consideration. The fact that the possibility to block battery use lies solely with the landlord shifts the burden of continued use to the tenant. According to the BGH, there is an unreasonable disadvantage if the tenant can only ensure the continued use of their electric vehicle in a possible conflict by seeking legal action for the continued use of the car battery. Since the clause in dispute provides for direct access to the e-car batteries, the vehicles become absolutely unusable for the tenant because the battery is blocked. It is impossible for the tenant to replace the battery as the battery is manufacturer-specific and replacement with any other make is impossible. The e-vehicle as a High-Value Asset would thus be rendered unusable.

If, in the event of a disagreement about the enforceability of the extraordinary notice of termination given by the defendant, in deviation from the statutory distribution of risk, the burden of action is shifted to the tenant by the GTC in question, this would represent an unreasonable disadvantage.

Press Release No.151/2022, BGH, XII ZR 89/21 (26 October 2022)