Judgment of the OLG Stuttgart dated October 28, 2025 – Az. 6 U 84/24
When returning a leased vehicle, disputes often arise over the so-called depreciation compensation: Lessors demand additional payments because they identify damages or wear and tear on the vehicle that, in their view, reduce its market value. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Stuttgart clarified in its judgment dated October 28, 2025 (Az. 6 U 84/24), the conditions under which depreciation must be compensated and how it is to be assessed.
The essential point is: not every disputed part of the vehicle automatically results in a payment obligation. What is crucial is whether the identified impairments go beyond normal wear and tear associated with age and mileage and actually cause an economically relevant depreciation.
Starting point: Return after kilometer leasing
The procedure was based on a typical case from kilometer leasing: A partnership firm leased a car from a leasing company for three years. After the term expired, the vehicle was returned. The lessor documented the condition of the car through an expert report, which listed seventeen defects and damages.
The leasing conditions stipulated that upon return, the vehicle must correspond to a condition that is reasonable for its age and agreed mileage. Normal wear and tear should be explicitly disregarded. Liability for damages or excessive wear, which establish an actual depreciation, was the only requirement. The leasing company evaluated the identified positions as compensable damages and demanded depreciation compensation of nearly 9,500 euros.
Dispute over the calculation basis
The lessees contested the demand. They particularly criticized that the report did not provide a solid basis for the calculated amount. Furthermore, the depreciation of a vehicle cannot be determined solely by adding up all repair costs. What is decisive is the actual loss in value on the used car market. In the first instance, the Stuttgart Regional Court largely upheld the claim. The lessees appealed against this decision.
OLG: Normal wear and tear does not trigger depreciation compensation
The OLG Stuttgart partially amended the judgment: In the end, the lessees were required to pay only 4,160 euros. Of this amount, 3,160 euros were attributed to the vehicle’s depreciation. An additional 1,000 euros pertained to an inspection that was outstanding, as per contractual obligations.
The court clarified that the lessee is generally only required to return the vehicle in a condition that corresponds to contractual use. Normal wear and tear, typically arising from age and usage (e.g., usual scratches within a common range), must be accepted and do not establish a claim for compensation.
According to the standards outlined by the OLG, only those defects that exceed normal wear and tear qualify for compensation. These can particularly include:
- Damagesthat typically do not occur with the contractually compliant use of a vehicle of this type,
- Defectsthat may occur but which a reasonable vehicle owner would usually have repaired (e.g., in the case of safety-related defects).
Repair costs are not automatically depreciation
A key aspect of the decision relates to calculation: Depreciation is not automatically equivalent to the sum of repair costs. What is decisive is rather an evaluative comparison:
- Actual condition: the actual value of the specific returned vehicle,
- Reference condition: the hypothetical value of a comparable vehicle of the same age and mileage, showing only usual wear and tear.
Only if the actual condition falls short of this reference condition and this is reflected in the market value, can depreciation compensation be considered. In the case decided, the court determined a depreciation of 3,160 euros.
Practical advice for lessees and lessors
The decision shows that return protocols and expert reports provide important reference points but do not automatically render every position refundable. For practical purposes, particularly the following points can be derived:
- Review contract conditions: The specific return conditions (condition, maintenance/inspections, definition of usual wear and tear) are decisive.
- Critically evaluate reports:An expert opinion must clearly distinguish between usual traces and compensable damages and establish the value reference.
- Value reference instead of repair sum:What is decisive is the actual market depreciation, not just the calculated sum of possible repairs.
- Have maintenance records ready:Omitted inspections that are contractually owed may trigger independent claims for payment.
Legal context (supplementary classification)
In kilometer leasing, the lessee typically does not become the “owner” of the vehicle, but uses it for the contract duration. Upon return, the condition required by the contract is crucial. In addition to the specific contract and leasing conditions, general civil law principles play a role, particularly for thedifferentiation between contractual wear and compensable damage.Furthermore, in cases of payment claims, it is regularly crucial whether the lessor can plausibly present and, in case of dispute, prove the facts that justify the claim (damage pattern, differentiation from signs of use, economic depreciation).
Conclusion
With its differentiated consideration, the OLG Stuttgart strengthens the position of lessees: A compensation for depreciation assumes that there are defects exceeding normal signs of use and that these defects actually lead to measurable depreciation. At the same time, the judgment illustrates that contractually owed maintenance (such as inspections) can independently lead to additional claims.
Note:This contribution serves general information purposes and does not constitute individual legal advice. To assess a specific return case, the contract, return protocol, maintenance records, and the actual circumstances of the vehicle are decisive.
