An example of an association action can be found within the German Act on Injunctive Relief. The case deals with the ban on carrying mobility aids, in particular electronic roll chairs and electric vehicles on public transportation. At the end of 2014 various transport federations limited the transportation of electric scooters state-wide with the justification that it portrays a safety risk, especially on buses. A lot of concerned people experienced the limitation as a restriction of their right of participation and self-determined mobility. A blanket ban on carrying electric scooters was announced in Kiel at a press conference. Users found out about the ban because mobility aids were prohibited on the bus. The Federal Self-help Association for Disabled People e.V (BSK) which is, according to § 4 UKlaG, authorized to sue as an anti-discrimination association, took legal action in 2015 against this ban in Kiel, Bochum and Mannheim. In this case, the association’s action served as collective legal protection, otherwise there would have been an excess of individual lawsuits.

The present association action ensured legal clarification. § 1 UKlaG and § 2 UKlaG were considered as a legal basis for the claim of injunctive regarding the carriage ban. A precondition of a claim in accordance with § 1UKlaG is the existence of invalid terms and conditions. It is questionable if a press release can be considered as terms and conditions. A claim regarding § 2 UKlaG requires a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. § 22 PBefG can be considered as a special norm, whereby it is not clear if the claim includes the carrying of mobility aids regarded for transportation. § 19 AGG further comes into consideration as a consumer protection law. However, it is controversial if the AGG is acknowledged as a consumer protection act. The BSK urged certain transport companies and passed an injunction procedure, as well as a main proceeding in Kiel and Bochum with filed legal remedies.

The BSK was successful within the second instance in Kiel with a preliminary injunction, the higher regional court in Schleswig Holstein accepted a claim, in accordance with § 1 UKlaG in conjunction with § 19 AGG, and also a violation of § 19 AGG regarding terms and conditions within a press release. The defendant party is obligated to lift the blank ban and to set differentiated criteria regarding that prohibition. The higher regional court in Schleswig Holstein does not mention the AGG in the main proceedings because they decided that the Public Transport Act is the priority. Additionally, transportation can be refused if it is necessary to fulfil the given safety requirements.

The higher regional court in Hamm decided that there is no comparability between the AGG and § 2 II UKlaG and therefore the claim was denied, and a revision was not approved.

Simultaneously, there was a political development which led to a decree from the highest traffic authorities. That decree regulates on a national level under which requirements an electric scooter can be carried on buses. These particular scooters are marked with a seal.