Following our success at the Berlin Administrative Court, we have now secured licences for a further car-hire fleet comprising a total of 10 vehicles – this time at the appeal stage. Once again, the focus was on the company’s financial viability. This new case confirms our approach of assessing the regulatory requirements against the statutory provisions and the specific economic circumstances of the business.
In our article dated 21 September 2026, we reported on successful summary proceedings before the Berlin Administrative Court. At that time, we were able to secure licences for a total of 17 hire cars on behalf of our client, after the State Office for Citizens’ and Public Order Affairs (LABO) had initially refused to grant the licences applied for.
We have now built on this success: in a further case, we secured licences for a fleet of 10 vehicles through the appeals process. Our work on financial capacity has thus also proved its worth at this stage of the proceedings.
Berlin’s licensing practices as a starting point
We have already described Berlin’s stricter administrative practices in our previous article. The review of existing hire car licences and the rigorous scrutiny of new applications have significantly altered the operating environment for businesses. In particular, financial viability has become a central point of contention.
There is no question that the licensing requirements must be carefully examined. However, it is equally important that this examination remains aligned with the statutory requirements. Our starting point therefore remains unchanged: companies must not be prevented from obtaining a licence by additional or excessive requirements if they fulfil the statutory conditions.
For the businesses concerned, this is not merely a legal issue. Whether the intended vehicles can be used for the planned car-hire operations depends on the licence being granted. A decision to refuse a licence must therefore be scrutinised closely, both from a legal perspective and in terms of its factual basis.
Financial capacity: It depends on the specific business
The financial capacity is governed by Section 13(1), first sentence, No. 1 of the Passenger Transport Act (PBefG) in conjunction with Section 2 of the Passenger Transport Regulation (PBZugV). According to these provisions, the financial resources required to commence and properly manage the business must be available.
As we have already explained in the first article, the assessment is therefore not necessarily concluded by the submission of a certificate of equity capital or a statement of assets. The question of whether sufficient funds are available for the start-up phase, as well as the plausibility and reliability of the evidence of assets, may also play a role.
This is precisely why, in our view, it is essential to examine the financial circumstances of the company in question in concrete terms. What funds are actually available? What costs will be incurred when operations commence as planned? And what capital requirements arise from the planned business set-up?
These questions were already at the heart of our work during the proceedings concerning the 17 hire cars. It was crucial to compare the specific plans, the available funds and the actual costs incurred with the legal requirements, rather than conducting the dispute solely on the basis of abstract assumptions about the business model.
10 licences already granted during the appeal proceedings
In this new case, too, financial viability was at the heart of our work. The subject of the proceedings was the licences for a further Berlin hire car fleet comprising a total of 10 vehicles.
The key difference from the case described above lies in the procedural route taken: whilst we were able to secure the licences for the 17 vehicles through urgent court proceedings, this time we succeeded in obtaining the licences as early as the appeal stage.
For us, this renewed success is a confirmation of our work on financial viability. A thorough examination of the legal criteria and the financial circumstances of the specific business is not only important for court proceedings. It also forms the basis for challenging a negative assessment by the authorities during the appeal proceedings.
The result: the much-sought-after licences for a total of 10 hire cars were secured for the rest of the fleet.
A rejection should be scrutinised closely
This new case demonstrates that a negative decision need not be the final word. At the same time, the two proceedings illustrate that different paths can lead to success: in the first case, it was urgent judicial relief; in the second, the appeal procedure.
Our conclusion therefore remains the same: anyone faced with doubts regarding their financial capacity or substantial additional claims should have a review carried out at an early stage to ascertain which requirements are actually stipulated by law, on which assumptions the authorities’ assessment is based, and whether these are appropriate for the specific business. We have already highlighted this approach in our first article.
This renewed success reinforces our commitment to consistently pursuing this approach – in the authorisation procedure, in the appeal procedure and, where necessary, before the administrative court.