Essen Regional Court - Judgement of 06/03/2025 - 10 S 211/24
(previous instance: Bottrop Local Court, judgement of 14/10/2024 - 12 C 44/24)
A judgement that goes far beyond the individual case
Some judgements are more than just paragraph decisions. They reflect social realities, reveal human abysses - and set limits where words become weapons. The ruling by the Essen Regional Court on 6 March 2025 is one of them. It concerns a tenant who, after decades of peaceful cohabitation, threatened his landlord and his daughter that he would „get his gun“ and „shoot them up“. A statement that not only triggered fear, but also signalled the end of a tenancy that had lasted over 40 years.
The court confirmed the summary dismissal - without any warning. What sounds dry is actually a decision with a signalling effect: it is a reminder that the right to a peaceful home is non-negotiable.
When neighbours fall out
The case began like many everyday neighbour disputes: with trivialities. A parking space, a garden area, misunderstandings about usage - nothing that couldn't be resolved. But irritated remarks turned into an open dispute, anger turned into rage. Until the tenant finally uttered the fateful words: he would „make use of his weapon“.
This statement was not made in jest, not in the heat of a split second, but in an escalated conflict. The man actually owned a gas pistol with a small arms licence. This gave the threat a weight that could no longer be considered trivial. The court made it clear that such a statement irrevocably destroys trust - and makes a continuation of the tenancy unreasonable.
The legal foundation: Section 543 BGB and domestic peace
Legally, the regional court based its decision on Section 543 (1) BGB. According to this, a tenancy may be terminated without notice if the terminating party can no longer reasonably be expected to continue the contract. This is supplemented by Section 569 (2) BGB, which expressly recognises the sustained disturbance of domestic peace as grounds for termination.
This means that a tenancy agreement is not an indissoluble bond. It is based on mutual respect. If this respect is lost - for example through threats, insults or violence - the landlord can act immediately. A warning is then unnecessary.
The court in Essen found that the threat to „shoot someone down“ was such a serious breach of the duty of consideration under Section 241 (2) BGB that the trust between the parties was completely destroyed. Nobody should have to live in a house where fear and aggression dominate everyday life.
Why no warning letter?
Many people think: „You could have given him a warning first.“ Normally this is true - tenancy law sees the warning as a means of de-escalation. But it presupposes that there is still a basis for trust. This is exactly what the court denied.
A warning would have been pointless here. The damage had already been done. As the judges put it: "Once trust in contractual loyalty has been destroyed, a warning cannot restore it. The case was therefore clear: the cancellation was effective immediately.
Humanity despite hardship
What makes the decision particularly remarkable is that despite the clear stance on the cancellation, the court showed a sense of humanity. The defendant was old, in poor health and had lived in the flat for over four decades. The court therefore granted him an eviction period until 30 June 2025.
The judgement thus sends a double message: it is strict, but not cold. It protects the landlady and her daughter without degrading the tenant. Law that combines moderation and humanity - that is what makes a fair judgement.
What tenants can learn from the judgement
The judgement is more than just a reminder - it is a reminder of responsibility. After all, conflicts in tenancies are commonplace, but their escalation is avoidable.
Three lessons for tenants:
-
Words are actions. A threat - whether meant seriously or not - can have legal consequences. Anyone who „just wants to let off steam“ risks far more than they realise.
-
Consideration is a duty, not an optional extra. According to Section 241 (2) BGB, landlords and tenants owe each other mutual consideration. This means: no aggressive behaviour, no intimidation, no poisoning of the relationship.
-
Seek help at an early stage. If disputes get out of hand, arbitration centres, mediation or discussions with the property management company can help. Communicating in good time prevents escalation.
What landlords should consider
Landlords can also learn from the judgement. Termination without notice is not a frivolous step, but the last resort. It should be well justified and properly documented.
Three recommendations for landlords:
-
Documentation secures evidence. Make a precise note of what happened when, who was present and what statements were made. Witnesses are crucial.
-
Seek legal advice. Before you give notice, a specialist lawyer should check whether the case fulfils the requirements.
-
Maintain proportionality. Even if the cancellation is justified, humane gestures - such as an eviction period - can help to avoid unnecessary hardship.
A parable of the broken glass
You can compare this judgement to a broken glass. A tenancy is like a glass of water on a table - transparent, clear, calm. As long as both sides are careful, it remains intact. But all it takes is a single blow and it shatters. You can try to glue the shards together, but the glass will never be whole again.
That's how it is with trust. When threats and fear come into play, the damage cannot be undone. The court has recognised this: At such a moment, there is no way back, only consequences - and protection for those who have been threatened.
A judgement as a social signal
At a time when the tone is becoming harsher, this judgement is a signal. It says: respect is not a minor matter, but the basis of living together. Nobody has to be afraid within their own four walls. At the same time, it reminds us that conflicts are unavoidable - but how we deal with them is up to us.
The Essen decision is thus exemplary of a balance between law and morality. It shows that the law not only recognises punishment, but also protection. It not only protects the landlord's property, but also the mental integrity of those who are threatened by violence.
Conclusion: Trust is the most fragile asset
The judgement of the Essen District Court is more than just a legal footnote. It is a reminder that words have power - the power to destroy or heal relationships. A tenancy agreement is not just a legal act, but a silent promise: of consideration, respect and peace in one's own home.
Anyone who breaks this promise with threats not only loses a flat, but also the very thing that makes living together possible in the first place - trust. And trust, once broken, is like glass: it still sparkles when it shatters, but you can cut yourself on it.
