{"id":11088,"date":"2025-04-03T04:13:40","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T04:13:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=11088"},"modified":"2025-07-13T13:56:02","modified_gmt":"2025-07-13T13:56:02","slug":"versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/supply-block-in-commercial-tenancy-law-olg-hamburg-strengthens-tenants-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Supply block in commercial tenancy law: OLG Hamburg strengthens tenants' rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction:<\/strong> Supply shut-offs - i.e. the shutting off of essential supply services such as water or electricity - repeatedly cause conflicts in commercial tenancy law between commercial tenants and commercial landlords. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Hamburg issued an important judgement on this topic on 5 February 2025 (case no. 4 U 95\/24). The case concerned the Switching off the water supply<\/strong> in a commercial rental property during an ongoing eviction dispute. The following article summarises and classifies the facts of the case and the key statements of the judgement in a comprehensible manner. Both Tenant<\/strong> as well as Landlord<\/strong> find out here what rights and obligations exist in the event of a supply cut-off and where the limits of permissible behaviour lie.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Facts: Eviction process and disconnected water supply<\/span><\/h2>\n

In the underlying case, a commercial tenant (plaintiff in the injunction) and a landlord (defendant in the injunction) were in dispute over an office property in Hamburg. The lease, which was originally limited until 30.04.2020 Commercial lease<\/strong> contained extension options. The tenant had effectively drawn a first extension of four years, but there was disagreement about a further five-year extension. The landlord then terminated the tenancy agreement - both with notice and for cause - and demanded that the tenant vacate the property. The tenant objected<\/strong> The tenant terminated the lease, invoked the renewal option and continued to use the rental property. At the same time, a Eviction process<\/strong> to court to clarify whether the tenancy has been effectively terminated and the tenant must vacate.<\/p>\n

In July 2024, the Escalation<\/strong>: On 11.07.2024, the landlady turned over the Water supply<\/strong> of the office. The reason given was that she had discovered a puddle of water in the basement. For the tenant, however, this was a threat to her business - without water, it was almost impossible to continue trading. She therefore immediately asked the landlady to switch the water back on and set a deadline for this. After the landlord still failed to reconnect the water, the tenant took the matter to court: she applied to the Hamburg Regional Court for an preliminary injunction<\/strong>to have the water supply restored immediately.<\/p>\n

The Hamburg Regional Court ruled in favour of the tenant in this urgent matter. By order dated 22 July 2024, it issued a temporary injunction obliging the landlord, to supply water again immediately and to refrain from future interruptions<\/strong>. In its reasoning, the Regional Court based its decision on the fact that, according to its summary examination, the tenancy was not clearly terminated - the Effectiveness of the cancellation<\/a> was therefore doubtful - and in this unclear situation, the landlord could not simply cut off the supply without authorisation. The burden of proof<\/strong> The landlord is responsible for terminating the contract and any doubts in summary proceedings are to be borne by the landlord. The landlord appealed against this decision to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, but was unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Key statements of the judgement (OLG Hamburg, 4 U 95\/24)<\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/span>Entitlement to water supply even after the end of the contract (Section 242 BGB)<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg confirmed the decision of the lower court in full. Even during an ongoing eviction dispute<\/strong> the tenant was entitled to continue to be supplied with water and to continue his business undisturbed. The decisive factor was that the tenancy was not terminated at the time of the lockdown. legally terminated<\/strong> was - the effectiveness of the cancellation was the subject of the dispute. As long as it has not been established that the contract has actually been terminated, the landlord must continue to fulfil the contractual obligations, which include the provision of water as a Essential supply service<\/strong> counts.<\/p>\n

But even in the event that the contract had already been terminated<\/strong>the court recognised a claim by the tenant arising from post-contractual obligations in good faith (\u00a7 242 BGB)<\/strong>. According to the relevant case law of the Federal Court of Justice, the landlord's obligations to perform (e.g. transfer of use in accordance with Section 535 (1) BGB) end with the termination of the contract. However<\/strong> individual obligations may continue to apply in exceptional situations if the Principle of good faith<\/strong> is required. The OLG Hamburg pointed out that in the case of Commercial leases<\/strong> such post-contractual obligations can result from special interests of the tenant - for example, if the tenant assumes, for understandable reasons, that he is still entitled to possession. This was exactly the case here: Due to the unresolved legal situation, the tenant was entitled to assume that the tenancy would continue and was dependent on water to maintain its business operations.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Behaviour of the parties and balancing of interests<\/span><\/h3>\n

The judgement makes it clear that landlords are not obliged to Self-help<\/strong> to assert their interests. An unauthorised Supply cut-off<\/strong> - for example, to build up pressure in eviction proceedings - is inadmissible as long as it has not been established by the highest court that the tenant no longer has a right of possession. Instead, the landlord must take legal action in an orderly manner (i.e. in this case, take the eviction process to the end) and respect the tenant's right of possession until then. In this specific case, the court took a critical view of the landlord's behaviour: the reason given for finding \"water damage\" (puddle of water in the cellar) did not justify the shutdown, especially as there was no acute risk to the building or third parties. This behaviour by the landlord clearly exceeded the limits of permissible landlord action.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the OLG weighed the Interests of both sides<\/strong> carefully. A key criterion here was the tenant's financial behaviour. Important:<\/strong> Despite the cancellation, the tenant continued to Rent and service charge prepayments<\/strong> paid. This meant that the landlord did not suffer any unacceptable disadvantages as a result of the continued water supply - it did not have to supply the water \"free of charge\", but continued to receive money from the tenant. The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg emphasised that an obligation to supply water only applies as long as it does not unreasonably conflict with the legitimate interests of the landlord. In other words:<\/strong> If the tenant had stopped making payments and the landlord had to bear the water costs alone, it would have been unreasonable to expect him to continue the supply. In such a case, landlords are more likely to be entitled to stop the services - case law allows for supply cuts after the end of the contract, especially if there are significant rent arrears and the tenant no longer makes payments. In this case, however, the tenant's interests in maintaining her business operations clearly outweighed the landlord's interests, especially as the latter was unable to prove any significant additional burdens. This result is in line with previous judgements in which courts prohibited the supply cut-off if the tenant would be unable to conduct business without water and the landlord would not suffer any major damage as a result.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Interim injunction proceedings and partial declaration of settlement<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Another interesting aspect of the case is the procedural handling of the preliminary injunction proceedings. During the ongoing appeal proceedings before the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, there was a twist: The tenant voluntarily surrendered the rental property on 6 December 2024<\/strong> (presumably because the eviction dispute was finalised at the same time). As a result, the water supply was effectively no longer an issue from this point onwards - the Application for injunction<\/strong> had been settled for the future. The parties therefore declared the legal dispute partially settled. The OLG clarified that a partial declaration of settlement<\/strong> is permissible in preliminary injunction proceedings if the applicant has a legitimate interest in doing so. In this case, the tenant wanted to ensure that the temporary injunction issued until December remained recognised as lawful in order to be able to enforce measures from it if necessary. The court stated that a declaration of settlement only for the future<\/em> combined with an application for a declaratory judgement for the past is possible if an enforceable title for the past period is to be retained in this way. If the legal dispute had been declared completely settled, the enforceable effect of the interim injunction would have lapsed. Due to the partial settlement, the Effectiveness of the cease and desist order<\/strong> (here: the obligation not to interrupt the supply) until the eviction. The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg recognised this approach and found that the urgent application until 6 December 2024 was admissible and well-founded and was only settled by the surrender of possession. As a result, the landlord bears the costs of the proceedings and the tenant retains a sanction framework (administrative remedy) for any breaches by the landlord until December 2024.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What does this mean for Cologne? - Relevance of the judgement for commercial tenants and landlords<\/span><\/h2>\n

Also in the commercialTenancy Law<\/a> principles of tenancy law apply. <\/em>Although the judgement originates from Hamburg, its Signalling effect<\/strong> also highly relevant for commercial tenants and commercial landlords in Cologne. Supply shut-offs in ongoing rental disputes can occur anywhere - for example, when a landlord in Cologne wants to turn off the electricity or water to a stubborn tenant of commercial premises in order to speed up the move-out process. The decision by the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg clearly shows that such methods are legally risky and are generally not tolerated by the courts. Commercial landlords in Cologne should therefore think twice before resorting to drastic measures: instead of Turn off the tap<\/strong>the correct way is to sue for eviction and foreclosure. Otherwise, there is the threat of interim injunctions in favour of the tenant - even a tenant in Cologne can quickly obtain an injunction from the competent regional court to prevent the Water supply<\/strong> or other services.<\/p>\n

For Commercial tenants in Cologne<\/strong> The judgement offers important protection: even if the landlord is of the opinion that the Commercial lease<\/strong> If the lease is terminated, the tenant may not cut the infrastructure without authorisation until the legal situation has been clearly clarified. Tenants can rely on their vested rights and Section 242 BGB, especially if they continue to fulfil their contractual obligations (e.g. rent payments). In an emergency, legal advice should be sought immediately and an urgent application can be made to ensure that operations can continue. Conclusion:<\/strong> The judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg strengthens the rights of commercial tenants to undisturbed business operations, warns landlords to act in accordance with the law and also serves as an indication for Cologne as to how comparable conflicts in the Commercial tenancy law<\/strong> are to be solved<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In its judgement of 5 February 2025 (case no. 4 U 95\/24), the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg ruled that commercial landlords are not permitted to switch off the water supply without authorisation during an ongoing eviction process, provided that the tenant continues to pay rent and operating costs. Such a claim exists in good faith (Section 242 BGB) even if the tenancy has been terminated in dispute. The judgement is particularly relevant for commercial tenants and landlords who want to cut off the supply in the event of a dispute and also sends out a signal for cases in Cologne.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11620,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-mietrecht-rechtsanwalt"],"yoast_head":"\nVersorgungssperre im Gewerbemietrecht: OLG Hamburg st\u00e4rkt Mieterrechte - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Gewerbemieter darf Wasserversorgung trotz laufendem R\u00e4umungsprozess nicht gesperrt werden (OLG Hamburg 4 U 95\/24)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/supply-block-in-commercial-tenancy-law-olg-hamburg-strengthens-tenants-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Versorgungssperre im Gewerbemietrecht: OLG Hamburg st\u00e4rkt Mieterrechte - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gewerbemieter darf Wasserversorgung trotz laufendem R\u00e4umungsprozess nicht gesperrt werden (OLG Hamburg 4 U 95\/24)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/supply-block-in-commercial-tenancy-law-olg-hamburg-strengthens-tenants-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-03T04:13:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-13T13:56:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zivilrecht.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supply block in commercial tenancy law: OLG Hamburg strengthens tenants' rights - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","description":"Commercial tenant may not have water supply cut off despite ongoing eviction proceedings (OLG Hamburg 4 U 95\/24)","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/supply-block-in-commercial-tenancy-law-olg-hamburg-strengthens-tenants-rights\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Versorgungssperre im Gewerbemietrecht: OLG Hamburg st\u00e4rkt Mieterrechte - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","og_description":"Gewerbemieter darf Wasserversorgung trotz laufendem R\u00e4umungsprozess nicht gesperrt werden (OLG Hamburg 4 U 95\/24)","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/supply-block-in-commercial-tenancy-law-olg-hamburg-strengthens-tenants-rights\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2025-04-03T04:13:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-13T13:56:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zivilrecht.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"helmer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_site":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"helmer","Estimated reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/"},"author":{"name":"helmer","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3"},"headline":"Versorgungssperre im Gewerbemietrecht: OLG Hamburg st\u00e4rkt Mieterrechte","datePublished":"2025-04-03T04:13:40+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-13T13:56:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/"},"wordCount":1577,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zivilrecht.jpg","articleSection":["Zivilrecht"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/","name":"Supply block in commercial tenancy law: OLG Hamburg strengthens tenants' rights - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zivilrecht.jpg","datePublished":"2025-04-03T04:13:40+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-13T13:56:02+00:00","description":"Commercial tenant may not have water supply cut off despite ongoing eviction proceedings (OLG Hamburg 4 U 95\/24)","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zivilrecht.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zivilrecht.jpg","width":1200,"height":600,"caption":"Zivilrecht"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/versorgungssperre-im-gewerbemietrecht-olg-hamburg-staerkt-mieterrechte\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Zivilrecht","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/mietrecht-rechtsanwalt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Versorgungssperre im Gewerbemietrecht: OLG Hamburg st\u00e4rkt Mieterrechte"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","name":"Law firm Tieben","description":"Lawyer Tieben \/ Law firm Cologne","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization","name":"Law firm Tieben","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","width":254,"height":52,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","https:\/\/x.com\/mth_Tieben","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/helmer-tieben-09570226"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3","name":"helmer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"helmer"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11088","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11088"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11088\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11860,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11088\/revisions\/11860"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11620"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}