{"id":12051,"date":"2025-10-03T17:44:12","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T17:44:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=12051"},"modified":"2025-10-13T06:02:52","modified_gmt":"2025-10-13T06:02:52","slug":"mietrecht-klausel-streichen-der-fenster-und-aussentueren-von-innen-ist-unwirksam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/tenancy-law-clause-painting-the-windows-and-exterior-doors-from-the-inside-is-invalid\/","title":{"rendered":"Tenancy law: Clause: Painting the \"windows and exterior doors from the inside\" is invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

Schwerin District Court, judgement of 18\/07\/2025 - 14 C 19\/25<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What was it actually about?<\/span><\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

<\/span>The judgement in brief<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Schwerin district court ruled:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    The cosmetic repair clause was invalid.<\/strong>
    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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The deposit had to be returned.<\/strong>
    The landlord was not allowed to offset alleged renovation costs because there was no valid basis for doing so.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Operating cost credits were to be issued correctly - even in the corrected amount.<\/strong>
    In this case, the tenant had raised objections, most of which the court found to be justified.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    The court clarified the interest on the deposit:<\/strong>
    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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    <\/span>Why this is important<\/span><\/h3>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    The judgement from Schwerin is one of a whole series of rulings that demonstrate this: Tenancy agreements must be clearly formulated.<\/strong> Any ambiguity shall be borne by the landlord if he has set the conditions.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>A parable<\/span><\/h3>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>What tenants can learn from the judgement<\/span><\/h3>\n

    The judgement provides tenants with important information on how they can better understand and enforce their rights.<\/p>\n

    Important points for tenants:<\/strong><\/p>\n