In the underlying case, a buyer had purchased a high-value vehicle for 35,000 euros in cash. The seller presented the registration certificate part II – the so-called vehicle title – and acted as the owner. It later transpired that he was not the true owner and that the vehicle had previously been reported stolen by a third party. The buyer refused to hand over the vehicle and invoked a bona fide acquisition pursuant to Section 932 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

However, the Regional Court of Frankenthal denied acquisition of ownership. Although acquisition by an unauthorised person is possible in principle, provided that the acquirer is acting in good faith, in this case there were several suspicious circumstances that ruled out good faith. These included, in particular, the unusually high cash payment without a receipt, the lack of a written purchase agreement and the failure to verify the seller's identity. In the course of the proceedings, the court found that the vehicle had not been stolen, so that a bona fide acquisition would have been possible in fact and not precluded by Section 935 of the German Civil Code (BGB). In the court's view, a bona fide purchaser would have had reason to check the ownership status more closely under these circumstances – for example, by checking with the registration office or comparing the vehicle with the central vehicle register. The presentation of the vehicle registration document alone was therefore not sufficient to justify an acquisition in good faith.

Legally, the decision is in line with the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, according to which the registration certificate Part II is not a document of legitimacy, but merely a strong indication of ownership. The purchaser is therefore required to carry out a plausibility check, especially in the case of conspicuous purchase conditions. Otherwise, they are not acting in good faith within the meaning of Section 932 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB). The decision also shows that the acquisition of movable property from an unauthorised person always remains an area of conflict between protection of transactions and guarantee of ownership. It sends a clear signal to the used car trade: the greater the economic value and the more unusual the circumstances of the purchase, the higher the requirements for the buyer's duty to investigate.

There are striking differences between German and Italian law in the treatment of the acquisition of motor vehicles in good faith: while German law generally allows acquisition in good faith – albeit under strict conditions in individual cases – this is largely excluded under Italian law. The decisive factor there is the entry in the public vehicle register, the Pubblico Registro Automobilistico (PRA). According to Article 1156 of the Italian Civil Code, the priority principle of the register entry applies to registered movable property. This means that even if the purchaser is presented with the vehicle registration document, they do not acquire ownership if the seller is the real owner.

For buyers – especially in cross-border transactions – this means that the mere handover of vehicle documents is not sufficient. Rather, a careful examination of the legal requirements is necessary, in particular the entry in the PRA. An international comparison of laws thus highlights the practical risks and requirements involved in cross-border vehicle transactions.