Regional Court Frankfurt am Main, 12 May 2015, Ref.: 2-13 S 127/12
Pursuant to Section 23 WEG, the condominium owners may pass resolutions at a condominium owners' meeting on all matters that can be decided by resolution in accordance with the law or by agreement of all condominium owners.
Pursuant to Section 10 (4) WEG, such a resolution is binding on all condominium owners regardless of whether and how they voted.
Nevertheless, such a resolution may be invalid and subsequently contested by individual condominium owners.
A resolution is invalid, for example, if it
-
-
- violates a mandatory statutory prohibition (§ 134 BGB)
- has an immoral content (§ 138 BGB)
- violates a legal provision, compliance with which is mandatory.
cannot be waived (Section 23 (4) sentence 2 WEG)
-
In the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court case discussed here, an owner contested a resolution of the homeowners' association according to which the front door of the house was to be locked at night
Facts and cause of action
The parties were members of a condominium owners' association. At an owners' meeting in May 2011, the owners decided to amend § 4.7 of the house rules. Accordingly, the front door was to remain locked between 10.00 pm and 6.00 am. The plaintiffs challenged this decision. The local court initially dismissed the action, whereupon the plaintiffs lodged an appeal with the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court.
Ruling of the District Court of Frankfurt am Main
The regional court ruled that the appeal was admissible and well-founded. It declared the resolution of the owners' meeting invalid, as the amendment to the house rules did not correspond to proper administration within the meaning of the German Condominium Act (WEG). Although it could be left open whether the resolution was invalid due to the Hessian Building Code, the interests of the owners were not sufficiently taken into account in proper administration.
Weighing up the interests and safety aspects
In the opinion of the regional court, the balancing of interests was essential. On the one hand, there is the need for security on the part of the flat owners, but on the other hand, there is the danger for residents and visitors in the event of an emergency if the front door remains locked. A locked front door would make it considerably more difficult to escape in the event of a fire or other emergency. The court emphasised that in panic situations, it was unlikely that every resident or visitor would always have a key to hand.
Alternatives to the locked front door
The court pointed out that there are technical alternatives that could fulfil both interests. Modern front door locking systems make it possible to keep the door locked, while in an emergency it can be opened from the inside without a key. As such solutions exist, the decision of the homeowners' association considerably exceeded the scope of discretion. The regional court therefore came to the conclusion that the resolution did not comply with proper administration and must be declared invalid.
Conclusion
The decision of the Frankfurt Regional Court makes it clear that security concerns of flat owners may not be resolved by blanket locking of the front door at the expense of escape options. Technical alternatives offer better solutions that protect the interests of all parties. The contested decision was therefore declared invalid.
Source: District Court of Frankfurt am Main
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.
