Hamburg Regional Court - Judgement of 10 June 2025 - Ref. 311 S 4/25
Previous instance: Hamburg District Court, judgement of 22/11/2024 - 21 C 401/23
Legal force: final (appeal not authorised)
Own use also for the second home - is „culture and family“ enough?
Many people assume that a termination for personal use only applies if the landlord needs the flat as their main residence.
The Hamburg District Court clarified in its judgement of 10/06/2025: Use as a second home can also justify personal use within the meaning of Section 573 (2) No. 2 BGB - if there are comprehensible and reasonable reasons.
The case: Second home for stays in Hamburg
The plaintiffs wanted to use the flat themselves in the future in order to spend the night there during regular stays in Hamburg - especially for cultural events and family gatherings.
The local court had confirmed the termination for personal use. The regional court rejected the tenant's appeal.
The decisive factor was:
-
The utilisation request was serious.
-
The reasons were reasonable and understandable.
-
The flat was not oversized for the intended purpose.
A landlord does not have to be told that there are also cultural offerings at the primary residence.
Requirements for the grounds for cancellation
The court also clarifies:
The notice of termination must state the tenant's own requirements in such concrete terms that the tenant can identify them and base their defence on them (Section 573 (3) BGB).
However, it does not have to contain all the details. Supplementary statements in the process are permissible as long as they do not replace the core already mentioned.
Objection of hardship according to § 574 BGB
The tenant cited health problems and a lack of alternative accommodation.
The court denied undue hardship:
-
There was no current evidence of adverse health effects.
-
Concrete and consistent efforts to find alternative accommodation were not substantiated.
However, the regional court granted a deadline for eviction until 31 July 2025 - in view of the tight situation on the Hamburg housing market.
Categorisation for practical use
The decision shows:
-
Personal use is not limited to the main residence.
-
A regularly used second home may also be sufficient.
-
The benchmark is not an „optimality comparison“, but the absence of abuse of rights.
-
Objections to hardship must be substantiated in detail and up to date.
The courts do not examine whether the utilisation request is „particularly necessary“ - but whether it is serious and comprehensible.
Conclusion
The Hamburg Regional Court reinforces the line of case law: The landlord's intention to use the property for his own purposes is only subject to an abuse check, not an appropriateness check.
Cultural and family motives can also be viable personal requirements - even in the case of a second home.
