Berlin Regional Court, 25 October 2011, Ref.: 65 S 38/11
With regard to the question of whether a tenant is entitled to install a satellite dish on the façade, balcony or roof of the rented property, a balance must be struck between the tenant's constitutionally protected right to information (Art. 5 GG) and the landlord's right of ownership (Art. 14 GG).
There are now a number of supreme court judgements on this subject (BGH judgement of 02.03.2005 - Ref.: VIII ZR 118/04 and of 16.02.2007 - Ref.: VIII ZR 207/04) from which a more or less clear line can be recognised.
In particular, if the tenant is already able to watch the programmes they want from other sources, they are not entitled to install an additional satellite dish on the house. This additional source can be, for example, a digital broadband connection or a communal satellite dish.
If the tenant nevertheless wishes to achieve additional reception possibilities by installing an antenna, he is dependent on the consent of the landlord. However, the landlord may not refuse consent without good reason (see BVerfG, NJW 1994, 1147).
Even if the tenant is authorised to install the parabolic antenna or has obtained the landlord's consent, it must be installed by a specialist in an inconspicuous and suitable location in accordance with building regulations.
As many households now also have the option of receiving free-to-air television programmes on the Internet, the question arises as to whether the landlord can refer tenants to this option. The above-mentioned judgement of the Berlin Regional Court had to deal with this issue.
Facts and initial situation
The plaintiff, a landlord, had rented a flat with a balcony to an Egyptian family. The main tenant installed a satellite dish to receive Egyptian television programmes, as these were not available via the cable connection in the flat. The court commissioned an expert report, which confirmed that Arabic-language channels could not be received via the cable connection. Although some Egyptian channels could be received via the Internet, the quality of these transmissions was considerably poorer.
Decision of the Regional Court of Berlin
The Berlin Regional Court ruled in favour of the defendant and found that the landlord had to tolerate the installation of the satellite dish. In the court's opinion, without the aerial, the tenant would not be able to guarantee his right to freedom of information and to practise his faith by receiving Egyptian television channels in perfect quality. The court ruling is based on the realisation that the reception of these channels via the internet is currently not a fully-fledged substitute for conventional television reception via satellite.
Right to freedom of information and exercise of faith
In its decision, the court emphasised the defendant's fundamental right to freedom of information and the practice of religion. As the family was not able to receive Arabic-language programmes through the cable connection, the satellite dish was a necessary measure to ensure this access. This was particularly important in order to receive news, religious programmes and other culturally relevant content in their native language.
Internet restrictions as a substitute
A central point of the judgement was the finding that Internet reception of television channels does not meet the quality standard required for adequate television reception. The expert opinion showed that the picture and sound quality via the Internet was significantly worse than via satellite reception, which is why the court did not consider Internet access to be an equivalent substitute. It was therefore decided that the use of a satellite dish was necessary to provide the defendant with access to Egyptian channels in adequate quality.
Conclusion
The Berlin Regional Court ruled that the installation of the parabolic antenna by the tenant was justified, as neither the cable connection nor the internet could provide a sufficient substitute for the reception of Egyptian programmes. This judgement strengthens the rights of tenants who are dependent on the reception of foreign channels to fulfil their cultural and religious needs.
Source: Berlin Regional Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.
