Eine Demurrage-Forderung der Reederei ist nicht allein deshalb wirksam, weil sie auf den Beförderungsbedingungen beruht. Diese Bedingungen sind Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen und unterliegen, soweit deutsches Recht gilt, der AGB-Kontrolle nach §§ 305 ff. BGB. Rogert & Ulbrich prüft, ob die zugrunde liegende Klausel überhaupt trägt – und setzt Ihre Einwendungen durch.

Worauf die Reederei ihre Demurrage-Forderung stützt

Standgeld entsteht nicht aus dem Gesetz, sondern aus den Beförderungsbedingungen und Tarifen der Reederei. Diese Bedingungen sind für eine Vielzahl von Verträgen vorformuliert und damit Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen im Sinne des § 305 BGB. Auch im kaufmännischen Verkehr gilt das AGB-Recht – modifiziert durch § 310 Abs. 1 BGB, der einige Klauselverbote nicht unmittelbar anwendbar macht, die zentrale Inhaltskontrolle nach § 307 BGB aber unberührt lässt.

Für Importeure und Spediteure bedeutet das: Die Forderung steht und fällt mit der Klausel. Wer die Bedingungen ungeprüft akzeptiert, zahlt unter Umständen auf eine Grundlage, die rechtlich gar nicht hält. Mehr zum Gesamtthema lesen Sie in unserem Ratgeber zu Demurrage und Detention im Containertransport.

Standgeldforderung erhalten? Verlangen Sie zuerst die genaue Tarif- und Klauselfassung, auf die sich die Reederei beruft.

Einbeziehungskontrolle: Wurden die AGB überhaupt Vertragsbestandteil?

Bevor es um den Inhalt einer Klausel geht, ist zu klären, ob die Beförderungsbedingungen überhaupt wirksam einbezogen wurden. Im unternehmerischen Verkehr genügt dafür regelmäßig, dass der Vertragspartner mit der Geltung der Bedingungen rechnen musste und die Möglichkeit zumutbarer Kenntnisnahme bestand – etwa durch Verweis auf dem Konnossement oder die Tarifseite der Reederei. Fehlt es daran, sind die Bedingungen schon nicht Vertragsinhalt geworden.

Daneben greift § 305c BGB: Überraschende und mehrdeutige Klauseln gehen zulasten des Verwenders. Eine Standgeldregelung, die sich an unerwarteter Stelle oder in unzugänglicher Form findet, kann an dieser Hürde scheitern. Auch die Frage, in welcher Sprache und Fassung die Bedingungen vorlagen, ist im internationalen Containerverkehr keine Formalie.

Unsicher, ob die Bedingungen überhaupt gelten? Lassen Sie die Einbeziehung prüfen, bevor Sie über die Höhe verhandeln.

Entgelt oder Schadenspauschale – warum die Einordnung über die Kontrolle entscheidet

Der entscheidende Hebel liegt oft in einer Vorfrage: Ist Demurrage ein Entgelt für die fortgesetzte Nutzung des Containers oder ein pauschalierter Schadensersatz für die verspätete Abwicklung? Nach § 307 Abs. 3 Satz 1 BGB sind reine Preishauptabreden der Inhaltskontrolle entzogen. Reedereien argumentieren deshalb häufig, Standgeld sei ein kontrollfreies Nutzungsentgelt.

Dagegen lässt sich einwenden, dass Demurrage wirtschaftlich vor allem Druck zur schnellen Rückgabe ausübt und einen typisierten Schaden abgelten soll. Wird die Klausel als pauschalierter Schadensersatz eingeordnet, ist sie voll kontrollfähig. Diese Einordnung ist umstritten und hängt von der konkreten Klauselfassung ab; die hierzu ergangene Rechtsprechung ist vor Veröffentlichung redaktionell zu prüfen.

Redaktionshinweis: Den aktuellen Stand der BGH- und Instanzrechtsprechung zur Einordnung von Standgeld als Entgelt oder Schadenspauschale vor Veröffentlichung verifizieren.

Hohe Standgeldforderung erhalten? Ob die Klausel kontrollfähig ist, entscheidet über Ihre Erfolgsaussichten – lassen Sie die Einordnung prüfen.

Inhaltskontrolle nach § 307 BGB – wann die Klausel unangemessen benachteiligt

Ist die Klausel kontrollfähig, kommt es auf die unangemessene Benachteiligung nach § 307 BGB an. Auch wenn die Klauselverbote der §§ 308, 309 BGB im B2B nicht unmittelbar gelten, entfalten sie über § 310 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB Indizwirkung. Besonders relevant ist § 309 Nr. 5 BGB zur Schadenspauschalierung. Typische Angriffspunkte:

• Pauschale über dem typischen Schaden: Übersteigen die Tagessätze den nach gewöhnlichem Lauf zu erwartenden Schaden deutlich, spricht das für eine unangemessene Benachteiligung.
• Kein Gegenbeweis möglich: Schließt die Klausel den Nachweis eines geringeren oder fehlenden Schadens aus, ist das ein starkes Indiz für ihre Unwirksamkeit.
• Non-transparent pricing structure: Ist die Logik der steigenden Tagessätze nicht klar nachvollziehbar, kann die Klausel am Transparenzgebot des § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB scheitern.
• Kein Bezug zur Ursache: Lässt die Klausel Verzögerungen außer Acht, die der Empfänger nicht zu verantworten hat, verschiebt sie das Risiko einseitig.

Wichtig ist, dass eine Teilunwirksamkeit die gesamte Klausel erfassen kann, weil sich AGB nicht auf den gerade noch zulässigen Inhalt zurückführen lassen. Eine überhöhte Pauschale fällt damit nicht auf ein angemessenes Maß zurück, sondern entfällt unter Umständen vollständig. Unterschreiben Sie keine Zahlungsvereinbarung, bevor dieser Punkt geklärt ist.

Forderung über mehrere Wochen Standgeld? Lassen Sie prüfen, ob die Tagessätze einer Inhaltskontrolle standhalten.

Anwendbares Recht und Gerichtsstand – die Vorfrage, die alles entscheidet

Die deutsche AGB-Kontrolle greift nur, wenn deutsches Recht auf den Vertrag anwendbar ist. Viele Beförderungsbedingungen enthalten jedoch eine Rechtswahl zugunsten einer ausländischen Rechtsordnung sowie eine Gerichtsstandsklausel. Welches Recht gilt, richtet sich nach der Rom-I-Verordnung und der konkreten Vereinbarung. Diese Vorfrage ist deshalb oft der erste und wichtigste Schritt jeder Verteidigung.

Gilt ausländisches Recht, lassen sich die §§ 305 ff. BGB nicht ohne Weiteres anwenden – die Prüfung verlagert sich dann auf die fremde Rechtsordnung. Zugleich sind Rechtswahl- und Gerichtsstandsklauseln ihrerseits auf ihre Wirksamkeit zu prüfen. Über den Dutch Desk decken wir auch die Schnittstelle zum niederländischen Recht ab, die bei Verkehren über Rotterdam und Antwerpen regelmäßig eine Rolle spielt.

Verweisen die Bedingungen auf ausländisches Recht? Klären Sie zuerst, welche Rechtsordnung gilt, bevor Sie inhaltlich argumentieren.

So prüfen Sie eine Demurrage-Forderung auf Unwirksamkeit

Wer strukturiert vorgeht, kann eine Standgeldforderung häufig erheblich reduzieren oder vollständig abwehren. Die folgenden Schritte ordnen die Prüfung:

• Klausel und Tariffassung beschaffen: Verlangen Sie die genaue Fassung der Bedingungen, auf die sich die Forderung stützt.
• Einbeziehung prüfen: Klären Sie, ob die Bedingungen überhaupt wirksam Vertragsbestandteil geworden sind.
• Einordnung vornehmen: Bewerten Sie, ob die Klausel als kontrollfreies Entgelt oder als kontrollfähige Schadenspauschale einzuordnen ist.
• Anwendbares Recht klären: Prüfen Sie Rechtswahl und Gerichtsstand, bevor Sie auf die deutsche AGB-Kontrolle setzen.
• Schadenshöhe hinterfragen: Verlangen Sie den Nachweis des tatsächlichen Schadens und prüfen Sie, ob ein geringerer Schaden darlegbar ist.
• Fristen wahren: Erheben Sie Einwendungen rechtzeitig und qualifiziert, um Verjährung und Präklusion zu vermeiden.

In vielen Fällen gelingt bereits außergerichtlich eine deutliche Reduktion, weil die Reederei ihre Pauschale nicht vollständig belegen kann. Bleibt eine Einigung aus, folgt die gerichtliche Abwehr oder Durchsetzung. Je früher die Strategie steht, desto stärker ist Ihre Position.

Je länger die Forderung unwidersprochen bleibt, desto schwerer wird die Verteidigung. Lassen Sie die Klausel jetzt prüfen.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in transport and forwarding law

Rogert & Ulbrich berät Importeure, Spediteure und Logistikunternehmen bei der Abwehr und Prüfung von Demurrage- und Detention-Forderungen. Die Rechtsanwälte Dr. Marco Rogert und Tobias Ulbrich und ihr mehrsprachiges Team kennen die Beförderungsbedingungen der großen Reedereien und die einschlägige AGB-Kontrolle aus der täglichen Praxis.

Wir prüfen Einbeziehung, Einordnung und Wirksamkeit der Klausel, klären das anwendbare Recht und setzen Ihre Einwendungen durch – außergerichtlich gegenüber Reederei und Spediteur ebenso wie vor Gericht. Über unseren Dutch Desk berücksichtigen wir auch die niederländische Rechtslage bei Verkehren über Rotterdam und Antwerpen.

Ob fünfstellige Demurrage-Rechnung oder strittige Rechtswahlklausel: Nehmen Sie Kontakt auf und sichern Sie Ihre Ansprüche.

FAQs – Häufig gestellte Fragen zu unwirksamen Demurrage-Klauseln

Der Beitrag AGB-Klauseln der Reedereien zu Standgeld – wann sind Demurrage-Forderungen unwirksam? erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Since December 2020, real estate agents are no longer permitted to unilaterally pass on their commission to the buyer when selling an apartment or single-family home. The principle of equal division, as stipulated in Sections 656c and 656d of the German Civil Code (BGB), mandates that the buyer and seller share the commission equally. If this principle has been violated, you, as the buyer, can reclaim the commission you have paid. Rogert & Ulbrich will review your real estate agent contract and enforce any legitimate claims for reimbursement.

What does the principle of equal division state?

The principle of equal sharing governs who pays the real estate agent's commission (also called brokerage fee) when buying property. Since the law on the distribution of real estate agent costs, which came into force on December 23, 2020, the following applies: When brokering apartments and single-family homes, buyers and sellers must pay the commission in the same amount. This is regulated in Sections 656c and 656d of the German Civil Code (BGB).

The underlying principle is consumer protection. Before the reform, it was common practice in many regions for the seller to hire the real estate agent, but the buyer was then charged the entire commission. Anyone wanting to buy a house had little room for negotiation and had to pay the full commission. The legislature wanted to end this one-sided distribution of costs. Since then, real estate agents are no longer allowed to charge the buyer more than the seller.

Did you pay the full real estate agent's commission when you bought your house? Have it checked whether the principle of equal division was violated and whether you can reclaim part of it.

For whom does the principle of equal division apply?

The principle of equal division does not apply to every brokerage contract. Section 656b of the German Civil Code (BGB) defines its personal and material scope. Two conditions are crucial:

• The buyer is a consumerThe consumer protection regulations only apply if the buyer is acting as a consumer within the meaning of Section 13 of the German Civil Code (BGB), i.e., not for commercial or self-employed purposes. Commercial buyers and entrepreneurs are not covered by this protection.
• The object of purchase is an apartment or a single-family housePurely commercial properties and multi-family houses that are rented to many parties are excluded.

The Federal Court of Justice clarified the scope of application on March 6, 2025. According to this ruling, the principle of equal division also applies if a single-family home has a subordinate commercial use option, such as a small office or a garage as an extension. The decisive factor is that the property must be recognizably intended primarily for the residential use of a single household, as far as the real estate agent is concerned.

Unsure whether your purchase falls under the principle of equal division? A brief legal assessment provides clarity before the statute of limitations expires.

Dual role or unilateral commissioning: Sections 656c and 656d compared

The law distinguishes between two basic scenarios. Which rule applies depends on whether the real estate agent is acting for both parties or only for one.

• Dual employment (§ 656c BGB)The real estate agent acts for both buyer and seller and obtains a commission from both. In that case, they may only accept an equal commission from each party. If one party is exempt from paying a commission, this exemption automatically applies to the other.
• Unilateral commission (§ 656d BGB)Only one party, usually the seller, commissions the real estate agent. The other party's assumption of costs is only valid if the commissioning party pays at least the same share themselves. The buyer may therefore never pay more than the seller.

In both cases, the result is the same: the buyer must not be burdened more than the seller. Agreements that circumvent this are invalid.

Not sure which scenario applies to your situation? The brokerage agreement and commission agreement will provide the answer. We'll organize the documents for you.

When the real estate agent has demanded too much: typical violations

A violation of the principle of equal division is not always obvious. It is often hidden in the contract's structure. These scenarios occur particularly frequently in practice:

• The buyer pays more than the seller.The buyer pays the full commission, while the seller pays nothing or less.
• Hidden transfer via the purchase priceThe seller engages the real estate agent, but the purchase price is reduced in the sales contract, and the buyer then assumes the entire commission. The Federal Court of Justice has also ruled on such circumvention schemes.
• Commissioning by a third partyThe brokerage agreement is not concluded by the seller himself, but by a person close to him, such as his spouse. This does not negate the buyer's protection.
• Different commission ratesBuyer and seller each conclude a brokerage agreement, but agree on different commission rates.

If any of these scenarios sound familiar, it's worth carefully reviewing your contract. Even minor deviations can invalidate the entire commission agreement.

Consequences of a violation: invalidity and recovery of funds

If a commission agreement violates the principle of equal division, it is invalid. An important point to note is that there is no reduction to preserve its validity. This means the agreement is not simply reduced to the permissible half, but is entirely void.

This offers you, as the buyer, a significant advantage. You don't have to settle for a refund of the overpaid half. In the event of a breach of contract, the real estate agent's commission claim is completely forfeited, meaning the entire commission paid can be reclaimed. The legal basis for this is Section 812 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which addresses claims arising from unjust enrichment. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed this right to full reimbursement in its ruling of March 6, 2025.

The classification of the specific violation determines the amount of your claim. Have your case reviewed before any potential claims expire.

What buyers should do now

The principle of equal division is just one of several ways to reclaim paid real estate agent commissions. Other options include revocation of distance selling contracts and the invalidity of faulty online order buttons. A systematic review will determine which approach is right for your specific situation. These steps will help:

• Collect documentsBrokerage agreement, commission agreement, notarized purchase agreement and proof of payment of the commission.
• Check text formBrokerage agreements for apartments and single-family homes require written form according to § 656a of the German Civil Code (BGB). If this requirement is not met, the agreement is invalid for this reason alone.
• Note the statute of limitations.Claims for reimbursement generally expire after three years. The period begins at the end of the year in which you made the payment and became aware of the circumstances.
• Have it legally reviewedA legal assessment clarifies whether a violation has occurred and how high the claim for reimbursement is.

The sooner you act, the more likely you are to meet deadlines. Send us your documents and we will review your options for claiming a refund.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in real estate law

Rogert & Ulbrich has been consistently representing consumers against excessive demands and invalid contract clauses for years. The firm was founded by Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich and has handled over 40,000 cases and filed more than 25,000 lawsuits. In real estate law, the focus is on protecting buyers, particularly regarding real estate agent commissions and the allocation of agent fees.

We review your brokerage agreement, classify your case according to the applicable review criteria, and enforce your claims for reimbursement, both out of court against the broker and, if necessary, in court. You can conveniently retain our services online; we operate nationwide and, if you have legal expenses insurance, we bill your insurer directly.

Did you pay a real estate agent's commission when buying a property and suspect a violation of the principle of equal division? Get in touch and secure your claims.

FAQs – Frequently asked questions about the principle of equal division

Der Beitrag Halbteilungsgrundsatz nach § 656c und § 656d BGB einfach erklärt erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Is your disability insurance company accusing you of concealing an illness when you took out the policy? A breach of the duty to disclose only leads to a loss of coverage if the insurer specifically asked about it, you are at fault, and they properly informed you of the consequences. Rogert & Ulbrich will review the claim and defend your insurance coverage.

What the pre-contractual duty of disclosure actually requires

The pre-contractual duty of disclosure obligates you to truthfully disclose certain circumstances when taking out insurance. This is regulated in Section 19 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG). A crucial limitation, which many policyholders are unaware of, is that you only have to disclose information that the insurer has explicitly requested in writing.

Since the reform of insurance contract law, there is no longer a general, spontaneous duty to disclose information. Previously, policyholders had to disclose all circumstances relevant to the risk on their own initiative. Today, the insurer bears the risk of unclear or missing questions. What they don't specifically ask about, they can hardly hold against you later.

This shift is the starting point of any defense. Before discussing pre-existing conditions, it's worth examining the motion: How exactly was the question formulated?

Is your insurer accusing you of providing false information? First, check whether the health questions were clear and presented in writing.

Which pre-existing conditions must actually be reported – and which do not.

Only information requested by the insurer must be disclosed, and even then, only within the scope of the specific question. This results in several practical limitations:

• Clear questionsAn unclear or ambiguous question is to the insurer's detriment. If several policyholders understand it differently, the insurer can usually draw no conclusions from a supposedly incorrect answer.
• Time periods queriedIf the insurer asks about treatments from the last five years, older cases do not need to be disclosed. Stick to the requested time period; you won't make a mistake.
• TrivialitiesA single cold or a minor incident without consequences is generally not relevant unless the insurer has explicitly asked about it.
• Knowledge of the intermediaryIf an insurance agent advises the customer to omit a piece of information when filling out an application, this knowledge can be attributed to the insurer. Case law considers the agent, in this respect, to be the insurer's eyes and ears.

In the event of a claim, insurers often portray any undisclosed diagnosis as a concealed fact. Attorney Dario Kovac is familiar with this strategy from his previous work on the insurance company's side. Whether this accusation holds water depends on the specific wording of the question, not on the mere existence of a previous diagnosis.

Are you unsure whether a pre-existing condition was subject to disclosure? Have your application and the wording of the questions reviewed before you contact the insurer.

The legal consequences: withdrawal, termination or contract adjustment

The insurer's rights depend crucially on your degree of fault. The law stipulates the consequences in stages:

• Intentional or grossly negligent conductThe insurer may withdraw from the contract (§ 19 para. 2 VVG). However, in cases of gross negligence, the right of withdrawal is forfeited if the insurer would have concluded the contract under different conditions even if aware of the negligence.
• Simple negligence: Here, the insurer may only terminate the contract (§ 19 para. 3 VVG) and not withdraw retroactively.
• No faultIf you could not have known about the circumstances, you are spared the need for withdrawal and termination. At most, a contract adjustment for the future is possible.

Furthermore, there is the issue of causality. According to Section 21 Paragraph 2 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG), the insurer remains obligated to provide benefits if the undisclosed circumstance was neither the cause of the occupational disability nor of its extent. Therefore, a concealed knee injury does not justify a refusal to provide benefits if you are occupationally disabled due to a mental illness. However, this causality threshold does not apply in cases of fraudulent concealment.

Is the insurer claiming a cancellation of the contract? Check whether the undisclosed illness is actually related to your occupational disability.

When the insurer loses its rights

Even if there is a breach of the duty to disclose information, the insurer can lose its rights. Three points are particularly important in practice:

• Duty to informThe insurer must have informed you of the consequences of a breach of the duty of disclosure by means of a separate written notification when you submitted your application (§ 19 para. 5 VVG). If this notification is missing or hidden, the insurer generally cannot invoke the right to rescind or terminate the contract.
• deadlinesThe insurer must exercise its rights within one month of becoming aware of the breach of the duty of disclosure (§ 21 para. 1 VVG). Furthermore, these rights are excluded after five years, or after ten years in the case of intentional or fraudulent breach (§ 21 para. 3 VVG).
• Lack of causalityThe insurer remains liable for benefits despite the injury if the circumstance was irrelevant to your occupational disability.

These are precisely the points that are often overlooked in rejection letters. It's worthwhile to examine the letter line by line against the legal requirements, instead of simply accepting the accusation.

Has a notification pursuant to Section 19 Paragraph 5 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG) been provided and have the deadlines been met? This question often determines the entire insurance coverage.

Simple breach of the duty to report or fraudulent intent? The crucial distinction.

The most severe option is the avoidance of the contract due to fraudulent misrepresentation pursuant to Section 22 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG) in conjunction with Section 123 of the German Civil Code (BGB). This differs fundamentally from a simple breach of the duty to disclose information.

Fraudulent intent requires a subjective element: you must have knowingly provided false information and at least tacitly accepted the possibility of influencing the insurer's decision. Simply forgetting a treatment or a misunderstanding is insufficient. Case law requires concrete proof of this intent to deceive and does not accept general assertions.

The consequences of fraudulent misrepresentation are severe: The contract is considered void from the outset, the threshold of causation does not apply, and it can be challenged for up to ten years. Insurers therefore frequently resort to this accusation, even when the necessary conditions are not met. Crucially, however, the burden of proof for fraudulent misrepresentation rests entirely with the insurer.

Is your insurer accusing you of fraud? They must prove this serious accusation – have their claims refuted by a lawyer.

What you should do if the insurer makes the accusation

If your insurer accuses you of violating your duty to disclose information, a structured approach is crucial. These are the important steps now:

• Secure application and questionsObtain a copy of your insurance application and check how the health questions were specifically worded.
• Check notice and deadlines: Clarify whether the insurer has issued the notification pursuant to Section 19 Paragraph 5 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG) and has complied with the one-month deadline.
• Clarify causalityDetermine whether the illness in question is actually related to your inability to work.
• Do not accept the accusation of fraud.If the insurer alleges fraudulent intent, demand a specific explanation. General accusations are not sufficient.
• Don't explain anything without thinking it through.Do not submit any written statements until the legal situation has been clarified. Careless wording will provide the insurer with ammunition.

Do not sign or confirm anything until you know the consequences of your statement.

This article is part of our overview of the five most common reasons for rejection in disability insurance. We will discuss in more detail how insurers handle referrals and benefit claims in separate articles. You can find an overview of our work on our insurance law page.

The sooner the allegation is investigated, the better. Have your case assessed while the deadlines for responding are still open.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in insurance law

Rogert & Ulbrich defend policyholders nationwide against allegations of breach of disclosure obligations. Attorney Dario Kovac, who is familiar with insurers' review and rejection strategies from his previous work on the insurers' side, serves as the contact person for insurance law. We combine this insider knowledge with the firm's consumer protection experience from major cases in banking, capital markets, and automotive law. This allows us to engage with insurers on equal footing.

We obtain the application and insurance terms and conditions, review the wording of the questions, the disclosure requirements, and the deadlines, and assess whether the insurer's claim is valid. We enforce your insurance coverage against the insurer out of court. If they maintain their position, we will represent you in court. We involve any existing legal expenses insurance early on and obtain the coverage confirmation for you.

Has your disability insurance company contested your contract due to an alleged breach of your duty to disclose information or refused to pay out? Get in touch and secure your rights.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about the Pre-Contractual Disclosure Obligation

Der Beitrag Anfechtung wegen vorvertraglicher Anzeigepflichtverletzung – was bei der BU wirklich zählt erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Demurrage and detention charges often catch importers and freight forwarders off guard and can quickly reach five-figure sums. Demurrage is the storage fee for containers that remain in port too long; detention is the fee for the late return of the container. Rogert & Ulbrich checks whether the shipping company's claims are even enforceable and pursues your objections.

Demurrage and detention – what the terms really mean

In practice, demurrage and detention are often lumped together, even though they relate to two distinct situations. Those who don't understand the distinction may accept claims that, upon closer examination, are either unjustified or only partially justified. This distinction also determines who is liable in the event of a dispute – the shipper, the freight forwarder, or the shipping company.

• Demurrage: Standing charges apply for a full container that remains at the terminal after the agreed release period has expired and is not collected. The charge is based on the blocked storage space in the port.
• Detention: A fee is charged for the late return of the container after it has already left the terminal. In this case, the recipient pays for the extended use of the shipping company's equipment outside the port.
• Free Days: Contractually granted days off during which neither demurrage nor detention charges apply. Only after these days have expired does the clock start ticking – often with staggered, increasing daily rates.

Crucially, both claims are based on the shipping company's terms and conditions of carriage. These terms and conditions are not automatically valid simply because they are printed on the bill of lading. This is precisely where the legal review begins.

Received a demand for demurrage? First, clarify whether it is demurrage or detention – the defense strategy differs fundamentally.

Overview of free days and fares of the major shipping companies

Maersk, MSC, Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM, ONE, and Cosco offer varying release periods and charge tiered daily rates afterward. The specific rates depend on the trade area, port, container type, and individual contract, and are regularly adjusted by the shipping companies. The following overview shows the typical structure; the exact days and rates must be verified with the respective shipping company's current tariff before each booking.

Editorial note: The stated ranges are for guidance only. Before publication, the current, port- and route-specific tariffs of the individual shipping companies must be verified from their official sources and entered.

Knowing the grace periods and daily rates in advance allows you to plan your pickups and returns to avoid demurrage charges altogether. In practice, however, this often fails due to delays beyond the recipient's control – such as customs inspections, terminal congestion, or strikes. In these cases, it's worth taking a closer look at the cause.

Unsure whether the calculated daily rates correspond to the agreed tariff? Have the invoice checked before you pay.

When demurrage and detention claims are legally contestable

Demurrage charges may seem like a simple calculation at first glance: days exceeding the grace period, multiplied by the daily rate. However, the law actually determines whether the underlying clause is valid. The shipping companies' terms and conditions of carriage are general terms and conditions and are subject – insofar as German law applies – to content control under Sections 305 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB).

Even in commercial transactions, not all standard terms and conditions are permissible. A clause that stipulates fixed daily rates without reference to the actual damages can unfairly disadvantage the other party and be invalid under Section 307 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Common points of contention include:

• Flat daily rates: If the rates are significantly higher than the industry-standard damage, the flat fee can be challenged as being unreasonably high.
• Non-transparent pricing structure: If the logic behind the increase in daily rates is not clearly comprehensible, the clause may fail to meet the transparency requirement.
• Lack of inclusion: If the terms and conditions were not effectively made available to the contractual partner, they have not become part of the contract.
• Applicable law and place of jurisdiction: If the terms and conditions refer to foreign law or a foreign court, it is first necessary to clarify which legal system applies.

Which legal system applies to the bill of lading is not a secondary issue, but often the deciding factor in the entire process. German general terms and conditions (GTC) control does not apply in every case – making a preliminary legal review all the more important. Do not sign any payment agreement before the validity of the underlying clause has been clarified.

Received a four- or five-figure demurrage demand? Have the underlying shipping company clause reviewed for validity before paying prematurely.

Typical disputes from Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg

Most demurrage disputes arise not from negligence on the part of the recipient, but from disruptions in the supply chain that no single entity can control. We see three scenarios particularly frequently:

• Customs inspection and seizure: If a container is held for inspection, the demurrage timer often continues to run even though the recipient is not allowed to collect the container. Who bears the burden of the delay is a matter of the contractual allocation of risk.
• Terminal congestion and strikes: Supply bottlenecks in Antwerp, as well as labor disputes and strikes in Hamburg and Bremerhaven, are causing delays for which the recipient is not responsible. Such circumstances, bordering on force majeure, constitute an important defense argument.
• Delayed documents: If the original bill of lading or a Telex release is missing, the container cannot be released – demurrage continues to accrue, even though the delay is due to the document chain.

Especially with container traffic via the major North Range ports, such delays can quickly add up. The key question is always: Was the cause the responsibility of the recipient – or of the shipping company, the terminal, or a third party? Those who document this clearly have a significantly stronger case in a dispute.

Is your container stuck in port and demurrage charges accruing? Document the cause thoroughly and have your objections reviewed promptly.

How to defend yourself against excessive demands – your guide to action

Those who systematically address a demurrage claim can often significantly reduce it or even completely reject it. The key is to proceed quickly and systematically before the statute of limitations expires or a premature payment weakens the position.

• Check the claim, don't pay reflexively: Assign whether demurrage or detention is being billed, and compare days and rates with the agreed tariff.
• Document the cause of the delay: Document inspections, traffic jams, strikes, or document problems with data, emails, and terminal evidence.
• Have the clause and the law reviewed: Have the effectiveness of the shipping company's terms and conditions and the applicable law assessed by a lawyer.
• Keep an eye on deadlines: Claims under transport law are subject to short limitation periods – a failure to meet this deadline can invalidate the entire objection.
• To formally raise objections: Respond to the demand in writing and with a qualified statement, instead of letting it pass without comment.

In many cases, a significant reduction can be achieved out of court because the shipping company cannot fully substantiate its flat fee. If no agreement is reached, legal action is the next step. The sooner you have a strategy in place, the stronger your negotiating position will be.

The longer you wait, the weaker your position becomes. Have your objections reviewed while the claim is still outstanding.

Forwarding charges by the freight forwarder and recourse

Demurrage often doesn't reach the shipper directly from the shipping company, but rather as a charge passed on by the freight forwarder. This raises the question of whether the shipper is obligated to accept the invoice at all. The decisive factor is what was contractually agreed upon and whether the freight forwarder is entitled to the claim.

A blanket charge without proof is unacceptable. The shipper can raise the same objections as against the shipping company and, conversely, seek recourse if the freight forwarder contributed to the delay. Understanding the interface between shipper, freight forwarder, and shipping company prevents paying for someone else's negligence. Learn more in our special article on chargebacks by freight forwarders.

Received a freight forwarder's invoice for demurrage? Check your objections and recourse options before settling.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in transport and forwarding law

Rogert & Ulbrich advises importers, freight forwarders, and logistics companies on all matters relating to demurrage, detention, and container transport. Attorneys Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich and their multilingual team have extensive experience in transport and freight forwarding law and are familiar with the legal disputes faced by major shipping companies and North Range ports.

We review the validity of the underlying terms and conditions of carriage, clarify the applicable law, and enforce your objections – both out of court with the shipping company and freight forwarder, as well as in court. Through our Dutch Desk, we also cover the interface with Dutch freight law, which is crucial for transport via Rotterdam and Antwerp.

Whether it's a five-figure demurrage claim, a forwarded freight forwarder's invoice, or a container stuck in customs: Get in touch and secure your claims.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about Demurrage and Detention

Der Beitrag Demurrage und Detention im Containertransport – der vollständige Ratgeber für Importeure und Spediteure erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Many buyers of condominiums or single-family homes pay a real estate agent's commission that they don't owe at all, or not in full. Since the reform of real estate agent law at the end of 2020, wrongly paid commissions can be reclaimed via three clearly defined avenues. Rogert & Ulbrich reviews your real estate agent contract and enforces legitimate claims for reimbursement both in and out of court.

Why checking the real estate agent's commission is almost always worthwhile for buyers

When buying a property, the real estate agent's commission can quickly add up to a five-figure sum. For a purchase price of €500,000, the buyer's share is often between €8,000 and €18,000, depending on the region. In many cases, this amount can be fully or partially reclaimed because strict legal regulations have been in place since December 23, 2020, and not every real estate agent complies with them.

The law protects buyers of condominiums and single-family homes who are acting as consumers. Special regulations apply to them regarding the form of the brokerage contract, the division of costs between buyer and seller, and the right of withdrawal. If the broker violates even one of these regulations, the commission paid can be reclaimed in part or in full.

Time is of the essence: claims for reimbursement generally expire after three years. Anyone who has paid a commission in recent years should therefore have their contract reviewed promptly before the claim is lost.

Did you pay a real estate agent's commission when buying a property? Have it checked whether the payment was justified before the statute of limitations takes effect.

An overview of the three recovery methods

There are three independent grounds for reclaiming a real estate agent's commission. Each grounds stand on its own. If one applies, there is a claim for repayment – sometimes the full commission, sometimes the difference paid in excess of half. In practice, we examine all three grounds simultaneously and pursue the one with the best prospects first.

Option 1: The brokerage agreement was not concluded in written form.

When a consumer purchases an apartment or a single-family home, the brokerage agreement must be in written form (§ 656a BGB). Written form means a legible, permanent declaration that identifies the person making the declaration, for example, by email, fax, or letter. A contract concluded only orally or through implied conduct is invalid. Simply requesting a property brochure, attending a viewing, or expressing interest by telephone does not constitute a legally valid brokerage agreement.

If the written form is lacking, no commission claim exists from the outset. Any commission paid nonetheless can be reclaimed in full. This is often the most effective approach because it invalidates the entire claim for remuneration. In our article on the written form of brokerage agreements, we explain which communication methods are sufficient and which are not.

Option 2: Violation of the statutory commission sharing

Since the reform, buyers and sellers generally share the broker's commission. If the broker acts for both parties (dual agency), they may only charge each party the same commission (§ 656c BGB). An agreement that places a greater burden on the buyer is invalid. If only the seller has commissioned the broker and the buyer is to share the costs, the buyer may only pay a maximum of half, and the claim against them only becomes due once the seller has paid their share and provided proof of payment (§ 656d BGB).

This results in two typical scenarios for claiming a refund: If the buyer has paid more than half or the full commission, they can reclaim the difference. If they paid before the seller has demonstrably settled their share, the payment was premature. You can read more about the division of brokerage fees and the seller's burden of proof in our in-depth article on commission sharing.

Option 3: Revocation of the brokerage agreement

If a brokerage agreement with a consumer is concluded remotely (e.g., by telephone, email, or via an internet platform) or outside the broker's business premises, the buyer has a right of withdrawal of 14 days (§§ 312g, 355 German Civil Code). If the broker has not properly informed the buyer of this right, the period is extended to up to twelve months and 14 days (§ 356 German Civil Code).

If the contract is effectively revoked, the commission claim lapses and any commission already paid must be refunded. In practice, the information regarding the right of revocation is often flawed or entirely missing, meaning the extended revocation period applies. We address the key aspects of the information provided, the start of the revocation period, and potential compensation for services rendered in a separate article on revoking a brokerage contract.

Are you unsure which course of action applies in your case? Have your brokerage contract reviewed instead of paying a claim without having it checked.

The correct check sequence: Step by step to recovery

Which of the three paths leads to the goal only becomes clear after a thorough examination. The following sequence has proven effective because it begins with the most powerful lever and doesn't overlook any deadlines:

1. Secure the following documents: compile the brokerage agreement, all email correspondence, property details, commission invoice, purchase agreement and proof of payment.
2. Check the form (Way 1): Was a brokerage agreement actually concluded in written form? If the written form is missing, the commission can often be reclaimed in full.
3. Check commission sharing (option 2): Who commissioned the real estate agent? Did the seller pay and prove their share? Was the buyer charged more than half?
4. Check the cancellation (Method 3): How was the contract concluded (online, by phone, at the doorstep)? Was the right of cancellation correctly explained?
5. Note the statute of limitations: The claim regularly expires after three years, calculated from the end of the year in which payment was made (§§ 195, 199 BGB).
6. Enforce your claim: first, send an out-of-court request for repayment; if refused, file a lawsuit for repayment.

The form is deliberately placed first: if it is correct, the commission claim is entirely forfeited, and the other questions become irrelevant. Only then is it worthwhile to consider commission sharing and revocation, which can each lead to a partial or full refund.

Unsure where your case falls within this review process? We'll place your contract within this sequence of steps and identify the most promising course of action.

Which purchases and which buyers are protected

The strict rules regarding form, commission sharing, and cancellation do not apply to every real estate purchase. Only buyers acting as consumers (§ 13 BGB) are protected, and only when acquiring certain types of properties. The decisive factor is the combination of property type and buyer status.

• Condominium: The purchase of an apartment by a consumer falls entirely under the reform rules.
• Single-family house: The purchase of a single-family home by a consumer is also covered, including a subordinate granny flat.

Typically not covered are the purchases of apartment buildings, commercial properties, and undeveloped land, as well as purchases by companies or commercial investors. In these cases, the formal and division rules do not apply. However, a claim for reimbursement may be considered for other reasons, such as if the real estate agent did not broker or facilitate the conclusion of the contract, or if they are too closely tied to the seller financially.

Unsure whether your purchase is covered by legal protection? A quick check of the type of property and your buyer status will clarify things.

Deadlines, evidence and typical mistakes in claiming refunds

In practice, a legitimate claim for reimbursement rarely fails due to legal reasons, but rather due to avoidable errors. The most important points:

• Keep the statute of limitations in mind: The right to a refund generally expires after three years. Anyone who waits too long loses the claim, even if the commission was clearly paid unlawfully.
• Secure proof of payment: The commission invoice, bank transfer receipt, and correspondence with the broker are the key pieces of evidence. Anyone who paid without a written contract should specifically document this gap.
• No premature recognition: A signed acknowledgment of debt or an unconditional payment can complicate enforcement. If in doubt, have it reviewed first.
• A paid invoice is not proof of the claim: The fact that a commission invoice has been issued and paid says nothing about whether the claim was legally valid in the first place.

Do not pay or sign anything until the brokerage agreement has been reviewed.

Have you already paid? The sooner the statute of limitations is stopped and the claim is asserted, the better the chances of a refund.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in real estate law

Rogert & Ulbrich represents consumers nationwide against real estate agents, banks, and companies. Attorneys Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich and their team have handled over 40,000 cases and filed over 25,000 lawsuits. This experience benefits buyers who want to reclaim wrongly paid real estate agent commissions.

We will review your brokerage agreement using all three possible avenues for recovery, determine the most promising approach, and enforce your claim – initially out of court by demanding repayment, and if the broker refuses, through legal action. You will receive a clear assessment of your chances of success, deadlines, and further steps.

Did you pay a real estate agent's commission when buying an apartment or house and now have doubts about its legitimacy? Get in touch and secure your rights.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about Reclaiming Broker's Commission

Der Beitrag Maklerprovision zurückfordern – Wann Käufer ihr Geld zurückbekommen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Those who become unable to work and file a claim often face rejection – frequently despite a clear medical diagnosis. Rogert & Ulbrich represent policyholders nationwide against their disability insurance companies. We are familiar with the five common grounds for rejection that shape almost every case in practice, and we show what really matters in a dispute with the insurer.

Why disability insurance companies so often reject claims

Disability insurance is supposed to kick in if you are permanently unable to perform your job at least 50 percent of the time due to illness, accident, or physical decline. In theory, a clear promise. In practice, many initial applications end with a rejection letter.

The reason is rarely an unclear diagnosis. Insurers examine claims based on narrowly defined criteria: the specific job description, the degree of impairment, the quality of medical documentation, any potential referral to other occupations, and the information provided at the time of contract signing. Each of these criteria is a potential weak point. Those unaware of them unknowingly play into the insurer's hands.

Attorney Dario Kovac, who specializes in insurance law at our firm, is familiar with this dynamic from his previous work on the insurer's side. This insider perspective is a crucial advantage in correspondence with insurance companies – because it reveals precisely where a letter is truly vulnerable to challenge and where it is not.

Have you received a rejection or a hearing notice regarding your appeal? Don't wait; have the insurer's reasoning reviewed before responding.

Reason 1: Job description not sufficiently explained

Insurers most frequently focus their claims not on the illness itself, but on the insured's occupation. The benchmark is the occupation last performed while healthy – specifically, the occupation as it was actually carried out, not as it appears in a job advertisement. Anyone who only states their job title on the claim form – "nursing professional," "IT consultant," "construction manager" – gives the insurer free rein in its assessment.

The insurer then works with standard job descriptions. From these, an alleged "residual capacity" can almost always be constructed, because the actual job requirements – physical strain, travel, shift work, screen time, lifting loads, stress levels, responsibility for employees or machines – are missing from the application.

What must be evident in the application:

• Specific tasks of a typical workdayWhich tasks, in what order, and for how long?
• Physical and mental demandsLifting, standing, concentration, screen work, patient contact, responsibility.
• proportion of individual activitiesWhat tasks characterize the profession and what proportion of the time is spent on them?
• Specific features of the particular positionShifts, on-call duty, travel, noise, heat, altitude.
• connection to the diseaseWhich of these activities are no longer possible or only possible to a limited extent due to the health impairment?

Courts now explicitly require this "defining job description." A generic application form is usually the worst option – even if the insurer sent it out exactly as it was.

Before you fill out the questionnaire about your occupation, you should know which formulations strengthen your position and which ones actually enable the insurer to make a referral.

Reason 2: Disability rating of 50 percent allegedly not reached

Insurance policies typically link benefits to a minimum 50 percent occupational disability. This threshold is the second major lever. It is frequently misunderstood – and insurers exploit precisely this.

The degree of disability is not determined by "50 percent illness" or "half work capacity," but rather by whether the activities essential to the specific profession are no longer possible to at least 50 percent. The benchmark is the occupational impact of the illness, not the illness itself.

Typical arguments from the insurer at this point:

• Performance reduction too smallThe illness only reduces performance by 30 or 40 percent.
• Adaptation instead of surrenderThe insured person could continue to practice their profession "with adjustments".
• Certificates regarding general mattersThe medical statements contained no specific reference to the activity.
• Partial load is sufficientA workload of just a few hours per day is sufficient for practicing the profession.

This argument can be refuted – but only if the job description is precise and the medical reports refer specifically to these activities. Important: A degree of disability (GdB) determined by the social welfare office does not, in itself, prove occupational disability. GdB and the degree of occupational disability are two different criteria and are frequently confused.

If the insurer doubts the degree of disability, the connection between occupation and medical diagnosis is crucial. Before submitting your next statement, ensure both points are legally aligned.

Reason 3: Insufficient medical evidence

Even when the illness is clear, the application often fails due to the form of the medical documentation. Insurers require not only diagnoses but also a functional description: What physical or mental impairment leads to what specific inability to work, to what extent, and with what prognosis?

The standard general practitioner's certificate usually does not meet these requirements. Keywords such as "herniated disc", "depressive episode" or "long COVID" are not sufficient from the insurer's point of view to prove a 50 percent occupational disability.

Insurers subsequently request their own expert opinions. These experts are commissioned and paid by the insurer. This does not automatically make them unprofessional – but experience shows that many insurers' expert opinions tend to emphasize residual capacity rather than limitations.

What a sound medical opinion must provide:

• Relation to the specific activity: Statements about specific professional activities, not just about abstract burdens.
• forecast: Expected duration and course of the restriction.
• Differentiated restrictions: Separation between physical, cognitive and psychological impairments.
• Resilience throughout the day: Consideration of daily form, pain breakthroughs and resilience over a whole working day.

Anyone who receives an insurance company's assessment should not accept it. A targeted statement from the treating physicians or a private expert opinion can pinpoint weaknesses precisely – this is often the only objectively effective response.

An insurance company's assessment is not a neutral judgment. Have it reviewed before accepting a decision based on it.

Reason 4: Referral, residual skills and reorganization

The fourth lever is the referral argument. Put simply: The insurer claims that the insured can no longer perform their original profession, but can perform another job or a reorganized version of their previous profession. Therefore, they argue, there is no occupational disability as defined in the contract.

The matter involves three scenarios that are treated differently under the law:

• Abstract referenceThe insurer specifies another activity that the insured could perform, but does not actually perform. This clause is primarily found in older contracts and has been largely eliminated in modern policies in favor of the insured.
• Specific referenceIf the insured person is already engaged in another activity, then it depends on whether this activity corresponds to their previous standard of living – i.e., income, qualifications, and social standing.
• reorganizationThis applies particularly to self-employed individuals. The insurer demands that the insured restructure their business so that the healthy aspects of the activity predominate. This is only permissible within narrow limits and only if the reorganization is reasonable and economically viable.

A referral to another job is not automatically permissible simply because the insurer claims it is. In practice, it often fails because the suggested alternative occupation is incompatible with the insured's previous standard of living, cannot be performed for health reasons, or is not realistically available on the job market. Which referral clause applies in a specific contract depends on the agreed terms and conditions – general statements are unhelpful.

Before you accept the argument for referral, have it measured against your specific contract and your specific job description.

Reason 5: Allegedly false health information provided at the time of contract conclusion

The fifth reason for rejection often only surfaces after the application has been submitted – sometimes years after the contract was signed. The insurer accuses the insured of having concealed or misrepresented pre-existing health conditions when taking out the insurance. This is called a "breach of pre-contractual duty of disclosure" and is the legal basis for two possible reactions by the insurer: rescission of the contract or contestation due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

Both have the same economic consequence – the service is refused – but differ in their requirements:

• resignationIn principle, a breach of duty by the insured is sufficient. However, the insurer must have asked specific questions, and the right of withdrawal is subject to a time limit.
• Challenge due to fraudulent misrepresentationThe insurer must prove fraudulent intent – that is, deliberate intent to deceive. The threshold is high, but in practice insurers succeed more often than policyholders suspect.

The decisive factor is not whether a pre-existing condition was "documented somewhere," but whether the insurer specifically asked about it and whether the answer was objectively false. Spontaneous colds, individual doctor's visits, or findings that the insured could not have been aware of do not need to be disclosed.

Anyone who receives a letter requesting a hearing or a notice of withdrawal or contestation should have it reviewed before making a statement to determine the exact question asked, the applicable deadline, and whether the insurer is still entitled to withdraw or contest the contract. Any ill-considered confirmation weakens any subsequent defense.

Do not respond spontaneously to a hearing notice regarding a breach of reporting obligations. Have the letter legally reviewed before submitting any written response.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in insurance law

Rogert & Ulbrich represent policyholders nationwide in disputes with their disability insurance companies. The insurance law practice group is headed by attorney Dario Kovac, who, from his previous work on the insurance side, has firsthand knowledge of the industry's review and rejection strategies. We examine this insider perspective in every single case – not as theory, but as concrete arguments against the letter you are holding.

We review letters of rejection, hearing, and appeal; formulate statements regarding the work performed and findings; evaluate insurance company reports; negotiate ongoing benefits and settlements; and, if necessary, represent you in the disability insurance claim before the competent regional court. We do this both out of court and in court – with a clear strategy from the very first letter.

Have you received a rejection notice from your disability insurance provider, a letter requesting a hearing, or a notice of contestation? Get in touch and secure your rights.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions

Der Beitrag BU-Versicherung lehnt ab – diese 5 Gründe stehen fast immer dahinter erschien zuerst auf R&U.

An inconspicuous sedan drives through the city center – a device the size of a shoebox whirs in the trunk. As the car circles the area, passersby's smartphones vibrate in droves, alerted by a supposed payment reminder or parking ticket. Those who click on the link often lose money from their bank accounts within minutes. These so-called SMS blasters operate from moving cars and have caused millions of euros in damages in some major cities. Anyone affected should act quickly to secure their right to compensation and legal action.

What is an SMS blaster and how does this new scam work?

An SMS blaster is a mobile device about the size of a shoebox that mimics a legitimate cell phone antenna. It's connected to a car battery, stored in the trunk, and remotely controlled via an app. The perpetrators drive it through densely populated areas – city centers, train stations, or stadiums. Within a radius of up to 1,000 meters, all the smartphones of passersby automatically connect to the moving device. A single drive can reach tens of thousands of recipients without the perpetrators knowing a single phone number – and the device can be deployed in another city a short time later.

Once the connection is established, the blaster forces the phones onto the outdated 2G network. Security standards are significantly lower there, allowing messages to be delivered without verification. Victims then receive a text message that appears to be from their bank, a government agency, the postal service, or a well-known company. These messages often threaten recipients with a supposed payment reminder, a parking ticket, or an unusual login attempt, all designed to pressure them into taking immediate action.

Anyone who follows the link is taken to a fake website that visually mimics the original platform. There, users are asked for online banking login details, credit card information, or confirmation codes for TAN procedures. Once the data has been entered, the perpetrators can initiate transfers or empty the account. In Geneva, the public prosecutor's office has now registered 154 victims with total losses of nearly two million Swiss francs.

This method is particularly dangerous because the SMS blaster bypasses the official spam filters of mobile network operators. The fake messages come directly from the perpetrators' devices, not via the regular network. Filtering technologies are ineffective. Furthermore, regular radio connections are disrupted during the attack – in Toronto, a single blaster even temporarily blocked emergency calls.

Before complying with an SMS request for immediate payment or data disclosure, check the sender directly with the official authority and do not use the provided link.

Claims for reimbursement against the bank: Section 675u of the German Civil Code (BGB) in the case of phishing.

Anyone who has lost money due to a phishing SMS often has a claim for reimbursement against their bank. According to Section 675u of the German Civil Code (BGB), in the case of an unauthorized payment transaction, the bank must immediately refund the amount and restore the account to the balance it would have had without the transaction. This applies provided that the payment transaction was not authorized by the account holder.

The decisive factor is whether the bank can prove gross negligence on the part of the customer under Section 675v Paragraph 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB). If gross negligence is proven, the bank can refuse or reduce the reimbursement claim. However, the burden of proof lies with the bank, not the customer. The mere fact that someone responded to a phishing SMS does not, in itself, constitute gross negligence. The specific circumstances are crucial – for example, how convincing the fake message appeared, whether warning signs were apparent, and what information was actually disclosed.

In practice, banks often reject reimbursement claims outright. They cite alleged gross negligence without providing specific justification. Such rejections often do not withstand legal scrutiny. Those who take early action and document the events significantly improve their position. In cases of particularly sophisticated attacks, such as SMS blasters, whose messages are virtually indistinguishable from genuine ones for consumers, the accusation of gross negligence can often be refuted.

Do not let a bank's rejection go unanswered, but have it reviewed legally at an early stage – the chances of success depend significantly on the substance of the bank's argument.

Criminal charges and evidence gathering after SMS blaster attack

In addition to pursuing civil action against the bank, filing a criminal complaint is an important step. SMS blaster fraud regularly constitutes several criminal offenses, including computer fraud under Section 263a of the German Criminal Code (StGB), unauthorized access to data under Section 202a StGB, and falsification of evidence under Section 269 StGB. Furthermore, it violates the Telecommunications Act, as operating a pseudo-antenna without a frequency allocation is illegal.

Filing a report opens the door to investigative measures by the authorities and can strengthen the claim for reimbursement against the bank. For effective evidence preservation, those affected should take the following steps:

• Keep the original SMS: Do not delete the fake message. Take screenshots showing the sender, date, and time, and save them separately.
• Save bank statements: Print out all unauthorized bookings or save them as PDFs, including the value date and recipient details.
• Document contact attempts: Document all phone calls, emails and chats with the bank in writing – including date, time and content of the conversation.
• Note the device context: Location, time of day and exact sequence of events after receiving the SMS – this information helps investigators locate the blaster.
• Have your account blocked immediately: If you suspect data misuse, immediately call the blocking hotline 116 116 and block all affected cards and access.

A criminal complaint can be filed at any police station or online via the state criminal investigation offices' internet portals. Additionally, reporting the incident to the Federal Network Agency is advisable, as operating an SMS blaster constitutes a serious violation of telecommunications law.

Secure evidence immediately after discovering the damage, before data is overwritten or connections are interrupted.

Who is liable for the damage? A comparison of the bank, the perpetrator, and third-party providers.

Several actors must be distinguished when considering liability. Primarily responsible are the perpetrators who operate the SMS blaster and misuse the data. In practice, however, they are rarely apprehended, as they often operate within international networks and conceal their identities. In the Geneva wave and similar cases, police and public prosecutors assume that organized cybercrime networks are behind them. Civil enforcement against unknown perpetrators or those located abroad is generally futile.

The second and, in practice, most important point of contact is the bank holding the account. Here, the reimbursement regime according to Sections 675u and 675v of the German Civil Code (BGB) applies. Whether the bank must reimburse the full amount, a partial amount, or nothing at all depends on the degree of the customer's fault. The security standards of online banking also play a role – institutions must provide up-to-date authentication procedures and be able to recognize suspicious payment patterns.

Payment service providers and third-party providers, such as instant bank transfer providers, are only liable in rare situations – for example, in cases of breached security obligations or overlooked suspicious payment patterns. Mobile network operators are usually not liable because their filtering structures are technically unable to detect SMS blasters.

Have all potential defendants examined before focusing on a single point of contact.

How to protect your smartphone from SMS blasters and smishing

Technical safeguards are the most effective form of protection. On many Android devices, the connection to the 2G network can be completely disabled in the network settings. Since the SMS Blaster operates exclusively via this outdated network, the attack is ineffective if 2G is disabled. You can usually find this setting under "Mobile" or "Network settings" and "Allowed network types".

It's not possible to directly disable the 2G network on an iPhone. However, Apple offers a "Lockdown Mode" in the privacy settings. This mode also blocks the 2G connection, but restricts other functions and should therefore be activated only when there is an increased threat level.

Those who travel abroad regularly should be aware that the 2G network is still operational in many countries. In such cases, the 2G setting must be temporarily disabled to ensure connectivity. Even in Germany, some 2G networks remain active, so disabling it may, in some instances, lead to reception problems.

Regardless of technical measures, it is advisable to be generally suspicious of any text message requesting immediate payment or data disclosure. Authorities and reputable companies do not send payment reminders or demands via text message containing clickable links. If in doubt, you should verify the claim directly with the official agency without clicking the link in the message.

Never disclose bank access data, TANs or credit card information in a text message upon request.

When is legal advice worthwhile in cases of SMS Blaster fraud?

Legal advice is always advisable if the bank rejects, reduces, or processes a reimbursement claim hesitantly. Particularly in disputes concerning allegations of gross negligence under Section 675v Paragraph 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB), many affected individuals underestimate their legal position. Banks exploit the complexity of the legal situation to enforce blanket rejections that do not withstand legal scrutiny.

Even in cases involving larger sums of damages or multiple bookings, early legal advice is advisable. Lawyers examine the opposing parties, secure evidence, and ensure deadlines are met – the statute of limitations for claims arising from unauthorized transactions follows its own rules, requiring a swift response. In criminal proceedings, the lawyer can also represent the injured party, review the case file, and prepare subsequent civil action.

Conclusion: SMS Blaster fraud requires swift and structured action.

The SMS blaster scam will continue to spread because it is technically easy to implement and highly profitable for the perpetrators. Cases from Geneva, Basel, Toronto, and now also from major German cities show that no network operator and no spam filter can reliably detect these fake antennas. Those who have fallen victim should not give up.

Claims for reimbursement against the bank are enforceable in many cases, especially if the allegation of gross negligence can be substantively refuted. Crucial to success are the swift and thorough securing of evidence, a timely response to the bank's rejections, and the involvement of legal counsel in complex cases. Those who proceed systematically have a realistic chance of recovering a large portion of the damages and supporting the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about SMS Blaster Fraud

Der Beitrag SMS-Blaster aus dem Auto: Wie Betrüger Ihre Bankdaten stehlen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Vaccine damage after the Moderna vaccination

The following batch numbers of the Moderna vaccine are associated with recognized vaccine injuries:

Vaccine damage after the BioNTech vaccination

Batch numbers have also been identified in the BioNTech vaccines that are frequently associated with vaccine injuries:

Can you find your batch number in one of the lists above – or are you experiencing unexplained health problems after a Covid-19 vaccination? Then you should have your claims legally reviewed. Contact us now – we'll help you gain clarity and enforce your rights.

Der Beitrag Impfschäden nach Corona-Impfung: Besonders schadensträchtige Chargennummern erschien zuerst auf R&U.

On November 28, 2024, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) surprisingly published the Excel list of all suspected reports, which had previously been kept secret. This represents direct confirmation of the previously refuted theory that there is a significant batch-dependent risk of harm in the vaccines. The PEI had repeatedly claimed to the public and the press that no such differences were detectable in Germany, while neighboring countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic had observed and confirmed exactly the opposite.

Only with the publication of the data on November 28, 2024, did it become apparent that the PEI had been aware of the batch-related damage for some time and had kept this information secret. The published data clearly shows that the 149 potentially damaging batches identified by the law firm Rogert & Ulbricht also fully match the damage reports listed by the PEI. These batches were reported a total of 235 times, but only 145 batches had a significant number of suspicious activity reports (over 40).

The law firm Rogert & Ulbricht had already correctly identified the top 10 most harmful batches of Comirnaty, well before the PEI. The PEI was aware of these findings and did not support the law firm in its efforts to inform the public, even though it was the PEI's responsibility to ensure proper drug oversight and to inform the public in a timely manner.

The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich published the top 10 most damaging batches at the time, all except batch ER9480, which were affected by the following batches:

• EX8679 (1st vaccination, 1st place)
• FD7958 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 2nd place)
• FC3095 (1st vaccination, 8th place and 2nd vaccination, 4th place)
• EX3510 (1st vaccination, 7th place and 2nd vaccination, 23rd place)
• FE6975 (1st vaccination, 2nd place and 2nd vaccination, 1st place)
• EW8904 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 39th place)
• ER9480 (1st vaccination, 28th place and 2nd vaccination, 33rd place)
• ET3045 (1st vaccination, 9th place and 2nd vaccination, 49th place)
• FD9234 (1st vaccination, 6th place and 2nd vaccination, 3rd place)
• EX3599 (1st vaccination, 3rd place and 2nd vaccination, 42nd place)

Although the Paul Ehrlich Institute was aware of the accuracy of this data, it did not support the law firm in its efforts to clarify the matter. However, it was the PEI's responsibility to oversee drug regulations and to inform the public promptly.

The PEI has now made the raw data from the safety reports from December 2020 to December 2023 publicly available.

Batch comparison: PEI reports vs. Rogert & Ulbrich

Questions from the law firm to the Paul Ehrlich Institute

1. Why did the PEI deceive the public about the significant differences in the harmfulness of the batches?
2. What was the cause of the extreme damage caused by the ten most problematic batches? Why wasn't this investigated?
3. Who was responsible for batch testing and why were the defects in these batches not detected during the PEI testing?
4. Who performed the plasmid testing of the batches?
5. Who was responsible for testing the batches for endotoxins?
6. Who checked the batches for SV40 Enhancer/Promoter and SV40 ori?
7. Why was no real-time monitoring of the batches carried out with regard to the suspected reports, as required by Section 13 Paragraph 5 Nos. 9 and 10 of the IfSG by the PEI?
8. Why was the public not warned about potentially harmful batches, and why were these batches not recalled by the PEI?
9. If there are over 10,000 damage reports for EX8679, why wasn't there an alert at the PEI?
10. How did the Paul Ehrlich Institute react to the devastating results from the manufacturer BioNTech?
11. Why did the technical supervision of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) not intervene?
12. Was the Federal Ministry of Health informed of the abuses? Did no one raise the alarm?
13. Was the EU Commission informed about the security-related aspects?
14. Why wasn't the production and distribution of the genetically engineered product stopped?
15. Why does the PEI claim that no DNA is contained in the vaccines without conducting its own sequencing?
16. Why did the PEI state that BioNTech tested the toxicity of the spike protein with huACE2 mice, even though BioNTech only used BALB/C mice?
17. Why did the PEI not publicly declare that Comirnaty was classified in the OEB5 class, i.e. as highly toxic from 1 microgram?
18. Why is the list submitted in such an unsorted manner?
19. Why is there a discrepancy between the processing number and the case number?
20. Why do the published data from the PEI differ significantly from the previously published figures?
21. Why is there no press conference to explain the key data?
22. Why didn't the PEI record the number of vials distributed in Germany per batch?
23. Since the same batches were also distributed in Austria and Turkey: What efforts did the PEI undertake to compare the data?
24. What measures has the PEI taken to determine the cause of the differences in the frequency of injuries?
25. When can the public expect an evaluation of the PEI's statutory health insurance data?

As of today, March 2026, these questions remain largely unanswered.

Der Beitrag PEI bestätigte erst Ende 2024 heimlich chargenabhängige Impfschäden und verstößt gegen Aufsichtspflichten erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Cryptocurrencies are in the media every day – and scammers are exploiting this interest. Anyone who falls for a fake trading platform or a Romance Scam Those who have fallen victim to this scam often believe their money is irretrievably lost. This is not always the case. Whether and how much can be recovered depends heavily on the individual circumstances – but above all on how quickly the right steps are taken. Rogert & Ulbrich advises those affected by this scam. Crypto fraud and provides support in the legal enforcement of claims for reimbursement.

What is cryptocurrency fraud? Legal classification

Crypto fraud refers to any form of deception in which cryptocurrencies are used either as bait or as a means of payment. The spectrum ranges from fake trading platforms and fictitious coins to pyramid schemes and manipulated wallets. German law does not recognize a specific criminal offense of "crypto fraud." Legally, in most cases, it is considered classic fraud under Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB): deliberate deception that creates an error in the victim and leads to financial loss. Depending on the specific circumstances, other charges may include computer fraud under Section 263a StGB, investment fraud under Section 264a StGB, or money laundering.

This classification is important for those affected: it means that criminal prosecution is possible – and that civil claims for damages exist. The chances of success depend on where the perpetrators are located, which platform the payment was processed through, and whether regulated cryptocurrency exchanges were involved in the transaction. A general assessment is not possible. Anyone who acts rashly and without legal advice risks hindering later investigations or harming themselves.

An overview of the most common scams

The perpetrators' methods are varied and professional. Some scams are particularly common in practice:

• Pig Butchering (Romance Scam): Perpetrators build an emotional relationship over weeks or months – via dating apps, WhatsApp, or Instagram. The contact appears random. Once sufficient trust has been established, the victim is led to a fake trading platform. Initially, small profits are displayed, and even initial withdrawals are possible. Then the pressure to make ever-larger deposits increases – until all the capital is lost.
• Fake investment platforms: Professionally designed websites with genuine SSL certificates, fake regulatory information, and deceptively realistic dashboards simulate legitimate crypto brokers. Deposited funds go directly to the perpetrators. As soon as a withdrawal is requested, suddenly "taxes," "compliance fees," or "unlock amounts" are demanded—a classic advance-fee scam. Those who pay lose more.
• Pump & Dump: Organizers acquire a worthless token and drive up its price through coordinated advertising campaigns. Telegram, They artificially inflate the price of X or YouTube and then sell off the stock suddenly. The price collapses, leaving unsuspecting investors stuck with worthless tokens.
• Rug Pull: Developers of a seemingly innovative DeFi or NFT project suddenly withdraw all liquidity from the smart contract or exploit hidden administrative privileges. The project disappears overnight, and social media channels are deleted.
• Phishing and fake wallets: Fake emails, text messages, and websites imitate well-known platforms like Coinbase, Binance, or MetaMask. Victims are tricked into entering their login credentials or seed phrase. The wallet is emptied in seconds.
• Impersonation and celebrity fraud: Perpetrators create deceptively realistic copies of social media profiles of well-known personalities and promise returns or repayments in exchange for cryptocurrency transfers. Even authorities like BaFin are impersonated – for example, through forged letters designed to exert pressure.

All these scams have one thing in common: the perpetrators work professionally, operate internationally, and use money laundering structures to conceal the flow of funds. Anyone who feels pressured to deposit more money or is asked to pay a "fee" to unlock a withdrawal should immediately stop all further transactions and break off contact.

Immediate action: What is crucial after a fraud case

The first hours and days after a cryptocurrency scam are often crucial for subsequent legal action. The sooner action is taken, the greater the chance of tracing the flow of funds.

What should be done immediately:

• No further payments – regardless of the pretext. Even if pressure is exerted or consequences are threatened: Every further transfer is lost.
• Break off contact – immediately sever all communication channels with the perpetrators.
• Secure evidence – take screenshots of chats, the platform, account balances, and all transactions. Record all contact information: phone numbers, email addresses, names used, AnyDesk or TeamViewer IDs.
• Record blockchain data – the wallet address(es) to which crypto was transferred, as well as the transaction IDs. This information is essential for forensic investigation.
• Be prepared for further contact attempts – many victims are approached again after the first scam, supposedly by "investigators," "recovery specialists," or "recovery companies." This is almost always another attempted scam.

Save all evidence before taking any further steps. Once deleted, it is usually impossible to fully recover it.

Criminal charges and blockchain forensics – why the two belong together

Filing a criminal complaint is advisable – but it's rarely enough on its own. Those who go to the police without legal representation often find that the authorities are overwhelmed and their own blockchain forensics resources are limited. Without forensically prepared transaction evidence, it often takes months or years before investigators can actually trace the flow of money. By then, wallets have long since been emptied and perpetrators have disappeared.

Blockchain forensics closes this gap. Cryptocurrencies are not anonymous – they are pseudonymized. Every transaction is permanently and publicly recorded on the blockchain. Specialized forensic experts can trace the flow of funds seamlessly: from the victim's initial deposit through intermediate wallets to centralized exchanges like Binance, Kraken, or OKX. The result is a detailed forensic report with a graphical representation of the entire flow of funds. This report enables law enforcement agencies to act swiftly – to lock wallets and freeze assets – without having to spend months conducting their own analysis.

There are other reasons to file a criminal complaint: Only those officially registered as victims can benefit from the potential return of seized funds. If your own account details have been misused for illegal transactions, filing a complaint early protects you from being suspected of money laundering yourself. Furthermore, any resulting damages may be tax-deductible.

Our law firm files professionally prepared criminal charges based on forensic reports and coordinates communication with law enforcement agencies.

Besides criminal law, civil law offers further avenues. Claims against the perpetrators themselves generally exist under Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as well as under Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (intentional immoral harm). The practical problem is well-known: the perpetrators are often untraceable, reside abroad, or operate anonymously behind shell companies.

Therefore, the focus is increasingly shifting to other parties involved in the transaction process:

• Cryptocurrency exchanges: If funds were transferred via regulated exchanges, individuals have a right to information. In certain cases, freezing requests can be filed. Exchanges often do not respond to direct inquiries from private individuals, but they do respond to letters from lawyers.
• Banks and payment service providers: If payments were processed via traditional bank transfers or payment service providers such as PayPal, it must be examined whether these providers violated their regulatory due diligence obligations. In certain circumstances, claims for damages may be considered.
• Credit institutions: In some cases, courts have held banks liable when demonstrably fraudulent transactions were not stopped in time.

Making a blanket statement about success is neither reliable nor possible. The chances depend on the specific circumstances of each individual case: the amount of damage, the payment method used, the location of the platform involved, and the response time after the fraud. Crucially, an early and coordinated approach is essential: forensic investigations, filing criminal charges, and civil proceedings are all interconnected. With each passing week, the trail becomes less clear.

Rogert & Ulbrich examines all civil claims on a case-by-case basis – against perpetrators, stock exchanges, payment service providers and credit institutions.

When is it worth hiring a lawyer in cases of crypto fraud?

In cases of cryptocurrency fraud, legal support is advisable in almost all instances. The complexity of the issue lies in the intersection of criminal law, civil law, international jurisdictions, and blockchain technology. Those who proceed alone risk destroying evidence, missing deadlines, or exposing themselves to criminal prosecution – for example, if their own account details have been used for suspicious transactions.

Legal counsel is particularly important if damages of several thousand euros or more have occurred, if cryptocurrency exchanges or payment service providers were involved in the transaction process, if one's own name or account details were used for suspicious transfers, or if a criminal complaint is to be filed in coordination with forensic measures.

Check whether your legal expenses insurance covers the lawyer's fees. Many policies cover proceedings in the area of cybercrime or Investment fraud From now on – it's always worth contacting your insurer early.

Conclusion: Act quickly, remain realistic

Crypto fraud is a multi-billion dollar, professionally organized crime – but it's not a lawless space. Perpetrators are increasingly being identified and prosecuted. Those who act quickly, secure evidence, and involve the right specialists have realistic chances of recovery in many cases – but there are no guarantees.

Be wary of anyone who makes unrealistic promises. Anyone who promises guaranteed repayment or only works on a contingency fee basis, which they secretly collect using dubious methods, is deceiving you a second time. Reputable legal counsel operates transparently and without guarantees of success.

If you have become a victim of crypto fraud, you should act now. Get in touch and secure your claims.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about Crypto Fraud

Der Beitrag Kryptobetrug – Geld zurückfordern: Was Betroffene jetzt wissen müssen erschien zuerst auf R&U.