Note:<\/strong> This post explains the legal situation in general and does not replace legal advice in individual cases. Whether a contestation or termination is effective in your situation depends on details that can only be assessed after reviewing the documents. Have your case reviewed before you make a statement or respond to a termination.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The landlord is not permitted to ask everything. They may ask what they have a legitimate interest in, and that is essentially a single question: Will the rent be paid? Everything that has nothing to do with this question is taboo.<\/p>\n Under data protection law, the self-disclosure is based on Article 6(1)(b) and (f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Conference of the Independent Data Protection Authorities of the Federation and the L\u00e4nder (DSK) has its Guidance on obtaining self-assessments from prospective tenants<\/a> published in January 2026 in a revised version (Version 2.0). It is not legally binding, but forms the benchmark against which the regulatory authorities measure practice.<\/p>\n New and practically important is the clear grading according to three points in time. What may be asked depends on how far advanced the application is.<\/p>\n Even within the permissible phase, not everything is allowed. Some delimitations from the guidance note will surprise even experienced landlords:<\/p>\n Another point raised in the guidance concerns the forms themselves: a blanket declaration of consent included in the self-disclosure form is not an appropriate measure. Anyone who makes the tenancy agreement conditional on consent creates a dilemma \u2013 and in that case, the consent is not freely given under Article 7(4) of the GDPR and is therefore invalid.<\/p>\n From the distinction between permissible and impermissible questions follows a rule that is central for tenants: an impermissible question does not have to be answered, and giving a false answer to it provides grounds for neither a right to contest the contract nor a right to give notice. Anyone asked about their religion or a planned pregnancy is allowed to remain silent \u2013 or answer falsely \u2013 without any subsequent consequences being derived from it.<\/p>\n In practice, however, this also means that anyone who leaves such fields blank is often eliminated from the selection process in a competitive housing market. That is the unsatisfactory reality behind what is, in principle, a clear legal situation. And be careful with the format: a slash through a field is routinely interpreted in practice as a negation, i.e. as an answer. Anyone who does not want to answer is better off leaving the field completely blank.<\/p>\n Fraudulent misrepresentation means: someone deliberately created a false impression in order to get a signature they would not have got otherwise. It is not enough that a statement turned out to be false afterwards. The deceiver must have known it was false \u2013 or asserted it recklessly. And the deceived party must have concluded the contract precisely because of it.<\/p>\n If this is the case, the landlord can revoke their declaration of intent according to Section 123(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/a> challenge. The episode is in Section 142(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/a>The contract is then considered void from the outset. Not as of tomorrow, but retroactively \u2013 as if it had never existed.<\/p>\n The challenge must be lodged in accordance with Section 124(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/a> be declared within one year. This period does not begin with the conclusion of the contract, but, pursuant to Section 124(2) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), at the time when the person entitled to avoid the declaration discovers the deception. A mere suspicion is not sufficient for this. The absolute limit is Section 124(3) BGB: avoidance is excluded ten years after the declaration of intent has been made.<\/p>\n For landlords, this means: anyone who only finds out years later through a credit check that the information provided at the time was incorrect has one year from that point onwards. Anyone who, on the other hand, stands by and watches for half a month\u2014even though they know\u2014risks not only the expiry of the deadline, but also the argument that the information was apparently not important to them, and therefore not causal for the conclusion of the contract.<\/p>\n For a long time, there was controversy as to whether a tenancy agreement that had already been performed could still be challenged at all, or whether the provisions governing termination, as a more specific rule, took precedence. In its judgement of 6 August 2008 (Case No.: XII ZR 67\/06), the Federal Court of Justice ruled that a challenge on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation is admissible even after the premises have been handed over, in addition to termination, and that, pursuant to Section 142(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), it has retroactive effect from the date the contract was concluded.<\/p>\n Important for context: This decision concerned a commercial lease. The Federal Court of Justice has not ruled on the matter in the same way for residential tenancy. The lower courts mostly apply these principles to residential property as well, but anyone relying on this should be aware that there is a genuine litigation risk here.<\/p>\n In addition to rescission, the landlord also has the option of termination. Here, a distinction must be made between two provisions that are often confused in practice.<\/p>\n Summary dismissal following Section 543(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/a><\/strong> requires an important reason: considering all circumstances, it must be unreasonable for the party giving notice to continue the tenancy. A deliberate deception regarding creditworthiness can constitute this important reason because it strains the relationship of trust right from the start. However, this does not happen automatically \u2013 it remains a matter of balancing interests on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n The summary dismissal for rent arrears<\/a> pursuant to section 543(2) sentence 1 no. 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/strong> is something different. It applies if the tenant is in arrears with the rent, or a not inconsiderable part of it, for two consecutive due dates, or if arrears amounting to two months' rent accumulate over a longer period.<\/p>\n The difference is worth hard cash to tenants. After \u00a7 Section 569 (3) no. 2 BGB<\/a> does a summary termination based solely on default of payment become void if the arrears are paid off in full no later than two months after service of the eviction action. This so-called Grace period payment<\/a> however, this only remedies the termination for default. A termination that is additionally based on fraudulent misrepresentation remains unaffected.<\/p>\n The ordinary cancellation<\/a> to Section 573(2)(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/a><\/strong> is the third way. It requires a culpable, not insubstantial breach of contractual obligations and operates with a statutory notice period. It is the milder measure \u2013 and is therefore often more defensible where the threshold of unreasonableness for summary dismissal is not met.<\/p>\n<\/span>Which questions the landlord is allowed to ask \u2013 and which not<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
<\/span>The so-called right to lie<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"Landlord's](\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/image2.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/span>Rescission on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation: Section 123 of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/span>What fraudulent misrepresentation means \u2013 in simple terms<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>The time limit: one year from the date of discovery<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>Is that still possible if the tenant has long since moved in?<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>Termination: summary or standard?<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/span>Comparison of the three ways<\/span><\/h3>\n