Schwerin District Court, judgement of 18/07/2025 - 14 C 19/25
Sometimes the devil is in the detail - and not in the big questions of a tenancy agreement, but in individual formulations that you almost overlook on first reading. Who would have thought that a small addition such as "from the inside" in connection with the painting of windows would ultimately determine the effectiveness of a clause? This was precisely the subject of a recent ruling by the Schwerin district court (judgement of 18.07.2025, ref. 14 C 19/25). And this judgement shows once again that tenancy law is not just a dry framework of paragraphs, but has a very concrete impact on the everyday lives of millions of people.
What was it actually about?
The initial situation was typical: a tenant had lived in a flat for many years and paid a deposit when she moved in. When she moved out, she demanded the repayment of this deposit as well as a credit balance from the utility bill. The landlords, on the other hand, objected: In their view, the tenant had failed to carry out cosmetic repairs - i.e. certain renovation work. They wanted to offset these costs against the deposit.
There was also a dispute about the interest on the deposit. The tenant was convinced that the deposit had not been invested properly and that she had suffered a loss as a result.
The result: a whole bundle of questions that many tenants and landlords are familiar with. Can the landlord pass on decorative repairs to the tenant? How exactly must a clause be formulated to be effective? What obligations does the landlord have when investing the deposit? And what happens if the statement of operating costs contains errors?
The judgement in brief
The Schwerin district court ruled:
-
The cosmetic repair clause was invalid.
Reason: The wording "painting the interior doors, windows and exterior doors from the inside" was not clear. It remained unclear whether "from the inside" also referred to the windows or only to the exterior doors. And it was precisely this lack of clarity that rendered the entire clause invalid. -
The deposit had to be returned.
The landlord was not allowed to offset alleged renovation costs because there was no valid basis for doing so. -
Operating cost credits were to be issued correctly - even in the corrected amount.
In this case, the tenant had raised objections, most of which the court found to be justified. -
The court clarified the interest on the deposit:
The landlord is obliged to invest the deposit securely and at the usual conditions for savings deposits - but he does not have to choose the institution with the very highest interest rates.
Why this is important
You might ask yourself: Why make such a fuss about a few sentences in the tenancy agreement? The answer is simple: it's about fairness and legal certainty. When tenants hand back a flat, it is not unusual for several thousand euros to be involved - deposit, ancillary costs, sometimes even a dispute about the condition of the flat. An unclear or ineffective clause can mean that the landlord is left holding the bag. For the tenant, on the other hand, it often saves them from high costs.
The judgement from Schwerin is one of a whole series of rulings that demonstrate this: Tenancy agreements must be clearly formulated. Any ambiguity shall be borne by the landlord if he has set the conditions.
A parable
You could say that a tenancy agreement is like a map. It should show both parties the way through the tenancy. But if the paths are blurred and you don't know exactly whether a path runs to the left or right of the river, then the tenant cannot be held responsible if they take the wrong turn. It was precisely this "blurring" in the cosmetic repairs that was the sticking point here.
What tenants can learn from the judgement
The judgement provides tenants with important information on how they can better understand and enforce their rights.
Important points for tenants:
-
Check your tenancy agreement carefully: Are the clauses on renovations clear or vague?
-
Do not be too hasty in agreeing to demands for cosmetic repairs. Many such clauses have been declared invalid by the courts in the past.
-
Remember: a deposit belongs to you. It only serves as security for the landlord, not as an additional source of income.
What landlords should consider
Of course, the judgement also affects landlords. Anyone who wants to draw up a legally compliant contract should not rely on old forms, but should check whether these fulfil the current legal requirements.
Tips for landlords:
-
Only use current sample contracts that comply with the latest decisions.
-
Pay attention to clear, unambiguous wording - especially in the case of cosmetic repairs.
-
Place deposits properly with a bank. This saves discussions about interest and possible breaches of duty.
Practical benefits for both sides
The judgement from Schwerin shows that disputes could be avoided if both sides were transparent and fair with each other from the outset. For tenants, this means: no fear of excessive demands. For landlords, it means more security if they draft their contracts clearly and with legal certainty.
And another thought: such judgements have an effect far beyond the individual case. They provide orientation - like a kind of compass that shows what is legally permissible and what is not.
Conclusion: A glimmer of hope for fairer tenancies
Tenancy law often seems complicated, but at its core it is about something very simple: fairness. The judgement of Schwerin District Court makes it clear that tenants cannot be held liable for unclear contract wording. At the same time, it protects landlords from being tempted to make excessive demands.
You could say that every decision of this kind brings a little more clarity to the relationship between tenant and landlord. And clarity is the basis for trust.
After all, both sides ultimately want the same thing: a regulated, fair and transparent tenancy. If the courts help to pave the way for this, it's not just a victory for the tenant concerned - but for everyone who lives or lets.
