Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof — BGH) in Karlsruhe has overturned a judgment of the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) in a model declaratory collective action (Musterfeststellungsklage) brought by consumer advocates against Berlin gas supplier GASAG AG, remanding the proceedings for a new hearing.
The legal dispute concerns the lawfulness of splitting gas prices in default and backup energy supply (Grund- und Ersatzversorgung) based on the customer’s supply start date.
- What happened: Germany’s highest civil court remanded the consumer protection federation (vzbv) class action lawsuit against GASAG back to the Berlin court.
- BGH ruling: Differentiating gas tariffs is not inherently unlawful in all circumstances; the appellate court must examine whether sufficient objective grounds justified the price disparity.
- Impact on consumers: The outcome remains open; it is currently undetermined whether affected customers are entitled to refunds.
Background of the Dispute and Consumer Advocates’ Position
In 2021, Berlin gas supplier GASAG AG introduced tariffs in basic and replacement energy supply with significantly divergent prices depending on the date supply commenced.
The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband — vzbv) deemed this tariff split unlawful and initiated a model declaratory action. In 2025, the Berlin Kammergericht ruled in favor of the consumer federation.
However, GASAG appealed the verdict to the Federal Court of Justice.
Findings of the Federal Court of Justice
At the hearing on September 22, 2026, the BGH held that the reasoning of the Berlin court was insufficient to declare the tariffs invalid.
The federal court clarified:
- A price split (Preisspaltung) is not unlawful in every scenario.
- The Berlin court must examine whether there was an adequate objective reason (hinreichender sachlicher Grund) for the price disparity.
- Following the vacatur of the previous judgment, the case returns to the Kammergericht Berlin for reassessment.
Henning Fischer of vzbv’s collective redress team stated that the Kammergericht must now evaluate additional circumstances that may weigh against such dual tariffs. According to him, the outcome remains open and affected consumers must await further legal determination regarding potential reimbursements. The consumer association plans to pursue the case further.