Düsseldorf Regional Court, 18 October 2013, Ref.: 25 S 7/13 U
Pursuant to Section 20 of the German Condominium Act (WEG), the management of the common property is the responsibility of the condominium owners in accordance with Sections 21 to 25 WEG and the administrator in accordance with Sections 26 to 28 WEG.
The appointment and dismissal of the administrator is regulated in Section 26 WEG. Both a co-owner and a third party can be appointed as administrator by resolution at the owners' meeting.
The appointment can be declared invalid if there is an important reason against it. In the above-mentioned judgement, the Düsseldorf Regional Court had to decide in the context of the appeal when such a reason exists.
Background to the dispute
In this case, the parties, who were members of a condominium owners' association, disputed the appointment of an administrator, the defendant, by the owners' meeting. The plaintiff had acquired two units of the property in 2005 by forced sale and had been appointed as administrator for five years. Previously, the defendant 1, the sole owner of the property, had been the administrator. The defendant, a long-standing employee of the first defendant, was appointed administrator at the meeting on 13 July 2020. The plaintiff did not agree with this decision and filed an action.
Decision of the Local Court
The local court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and declared the appointment of the defendant as administrator invalid. In the court's opinion, the appointment did not comply with the principles of proper administration in accordance with § 21 WEG. This provision gives the owners the right to appoint an administrator who fulfils the requirements of proper administration.
There was good cause against the appointment of the administrator, as the court considered it unacceptable to work with the defendant. The professional competence of the defendant was called into question, as he had neither the appropriate training nor independent experience in the management of residential property. His previous work in property management was subject to instructions and he did not make any independent decisions.
Decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court
On appeal, the Düsseldorf Regional Court upheld the decision of the Local Court. It clarified that the administrator has a special position of trust, as he acts as a trustee of third-party assets. However, the relationship of trust between the flat owners had been permanently disturbed due to previous conflicts, in particular in connection with the letting of the units as a brothel. The defendant's close connection to the first defendant also contributed to the lack of the necessary neutrality and trust in his management activities.
Summary of the legal assessment
The court ruled that the appointment of an administrator is inadmissible if there is an important reason against the appointment. In this case, the disputes between the co-owners had not been resolved and the impartiality of the co-owner was doubtful. The letting of the units as a brothel and the close relationship between the co-owner and the previous administrator were decisive factors in the appointment of the administrator being contrary to the principles of proper administration. The court therefore dismissed the defendant's appeal and declared the defendant's appointment invalid.
Source: Düsseldorf 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.