(openPR) In its judgment of July 10, 2024 (VIII ZR 276/23), the Federal Court of Justice decided the following case on the subject of termination of tenancy for personal use:
In the present case, a GbR had bought an apartment in Berlin and declared that one of the partners needed it for their own use. The GbR, as the new landlord, terminated the tenancy for the tenants because it needed it for its own use. A so-called termination restriction according to Section 577 of the German Civil Code (BGB) means that the purchaser can only invoke a legitimate interest after three years have passed. The termination restriction applies accordingly if the living space has been sold to a partnership or to several purchasers.
The GbR therefore relied on an exception: the termination restriction does not apply if the partners belonged to the same family at the time of acquisition of the property. Two cousins were among the partners.
The GbR sued the tenants for eviction. The Berlin-Mitte District Court dismissed the eviction suit. The Berlin Regional Court took a different view.
The matter has now been referred to the Federal Court of Justice for a decision. The Federal Court of Justice is of the opinion that the same family does not include cousins.
According to the BGH, the term “family” is equivalent to that of “family members” in Section 573 Paragraph 2 No. 2 of the German Civil Code. This refers exclusively to those people who have the right to refuse to give evidence for personal reasons. More distant relatives – such as a cousin – are not part of the preferred group of people.
The Federal Court of Justice sees the term “family” as a close family relationship that assumes a typical relationship of personal connection and solidarity.
The judgment of the regional court was overturned and the first instance judgment was reinstated.
This article was written by Attorney Oliver Thieler, LL.M. prepared by the law firm Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.
Attorney Oliver Thieler, LL.M. has been active for years in the field of international cross-border inheritance law and is the author of the publication: “Correct inheritance and inheritance”.
Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH represents you throughout Germany and specializes in the following legal areas: guardianship law, inheritance law, real estate and tenancy law, gift law and tax law.
If you are faced with a similar tenancy law case and/or need legal advice on tenancy law, please do not hesitate to contact the law firm Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.
You can either call us on 089/44 232 990 or send us an email or use the contact form.
Further information can be found at www.rechtsanwalt-thieler.de
– What defines “family” in the context of tenancy termination under German law?
Table of Contents
Federal Court of Justice Clarifies Termination of Tenancy for Personal Use: Cousins Not Considered “Family”
The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has handed down a significant judgment on the termination of tenancy for personal use, providing clarity on the interpretation of the term “family” in the context of Section 577 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB). In its decision of July 10, 2024 (VIII ZR 276/23), the BGH has ruled that cousins do not fall within the definition of “family” for the purpose of terminating a tenancy agreement.
The Case: A GbR’s Attempt to Terminate a Tenancy Agreement
The case involved a General Partnership (GbR) that had purchased an apartment in Berlin and sought to terminate the tenancy agreement with the existing tenants, citing the need for personal use by one of its partners. However, the GbR faced a hurdle in the form of a termination restriction according to Section 577 of the BGB, which stipulates that a purchaser can only invoke a legitimate interest in terminating a tenancy agreement after a period of three years has elapsed. This restriction applies equally where the property has been sold to a partnership or multiple purchasers.
The Exception: Family Members
The GbR attempted to rely on an exception to this rule, which provides that the termination restriction does not apply if the partners belong to the same family at the time of acquisition of the property. In this case, two cousins were among the partners of the GbR. The question before the court was whether cousins could be considered as belonging to the same family for the purpose of this exception.
The BGH’s Decision: Cousins Are Not “Family”
The BGH has definitively ruled that cousins do not constitute ”family” for the purpose of this exception. According to the court, the term “family” is equivalent to “family members” in Section 573 Paragraph 2 No. 2 of the BGB, which refers exclusively to those individuals who have the right to refuse to give evidence for personal reasons. This definition does not extend to more distant relatives, such as cousins.
The BGH’s interpretation of “family” is based on a close family relationship that assumes a typical relationship of personal connection and solidarity. In essence, the court has drawn a clear distinction between immediate family members and more distant relatives.
Implications for Landlords and Tenants
This judgment has significant implications for landlords and tenants in Germany. It clarifies that the exception to the termination restriction in Section 577 of the BGB is limited to immediate family members, such as spouses, parents, and children. This ruling will likely have a ripple effect on the way tenancy agreements are negotiated and disputes are resolved in the German rental market.
About the Author
This article was written by Attorney Oliver Thieler, LL.M., a renowned expert in international cross-border inheritance law. Attorney Thieler is the author of the publication “Correct Inheritance and Inheritance” and has been active in this field for many years. Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, a law firm with expertise in various areas of German law, represents clients throughout Germany.
Keywords: termination of tenancy, personal use, Federal Court of Justice, German Civil Code, Section 577, family members, cousins, landlords, tenants, German rental market, cross-border inheritance law.
Meta Description: Learn about the Federal Court of Justice’s recent judgment on the termination of tenancy for personal use, clarifying the definition of “family” in the context of Section 577 of the German Civil Code.
– How does the Federal Court of Justice define “family” in tenancy law?
What Defines “Family” in the Context of Tenancy Law: A Closer Look at the Federal Court of Justice’s Decision
The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has recently made a significant ruling on the definition of “family” in the context of tenancy law, specifically in relation to the termination of tenancy for personal use. In its judgment of July 10, 2024 (VIII ZR 276/23), the BGH has shed light on the interpretation of the term “family” and its implications on tenancy law cases.
The Case in Question
The case revolves around a partnership (GbR) that purchased an apartment in Berlin and subsequently terminated the tenancy of the existing tenants, citing the need for personal use by one of the partners. The tenants contested the termination, and the matter was eventually referred to the BGH for a final decision.
The Legal Background
In Germany, the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) provides for a termination restriction under Section 577, which prohibits the new landlord from terminating the tenancy for personal use within three years of acquiring the property. However, this restriction does not apply if the partners belong to the same family at the time of acquisition.
The Exception: “Same Family”
In this case, the GbR argued that the exception applied, as two cousins were among the partners. The BGH was tasked with determining whether cousins qualify as part of the “same family” for the purposes of the termination restriction.
The BGH’s Decision
The BGH ruled that cousins do not fall within the definition of “family” in this context. The court opined that the term “family” refers exclusively to those individuals who have the right to refuse to give evidence for personal reasons, as outlined in Section 573 Paragraph 2 No. 2 of the BGB. This definition does not include more distant relatives such as cousins.
The BGH’s Interpretation of “Family”
The BGH’s decision clarifies that the term “family” in the context of tenancy law refers to a close family relationship, characterized by a typical bond of personal connection and solidarity. This interpretation implies that only immediate family members, such as spouses, parents, and children, are considered part of the “same family.”
Implications for Tenancy Law Cases
The BGH’s ruling has significant implications for tenancy law cases, particularly those involving the termination of tenancy for personal use. Landlords seeking to terminate a tenancy agreement must carefully consider the definition of “family” and whether they meet the exception under Section 577 of the BGB.
Expert Legal Advice
If you are involved in a tenancy law dispute or require guidance on the termination of tenancy for personal use, it is essential to seek expert legal advice from a reputable law firm such as Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH. With years of experience in international cross-border inheritance law, Attorney Oliver Thieler, LL.M. can provide you with comprehensive legal guidance and representation.
Contact Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH today to schedule a consultation and ensure you receive the best possible legal advice for your tenancy law case.
Resources
Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH)
German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB)
* Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
SEO Keywords: tenancy law, termination of tenancy, personal use, family definition, Bundesgerichtshof, German Civil Code, Section 577, Attorney Oliver Thieler, LL.M., Prof. Dr. Thieler – Prof. Dr. Böh – Thieler Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.
