Federal Court of Justice, 05.03.2014, Ref.: VIII ZR 205/13
Many apartment blocks are equipped with modern locking systems that allow tenants to access many common areas of the building with a master key.
If a tenant loses such a key, the question arises as to whether the tenant is only obliged to replace the lost key or to bear the costs of replacing the entire locking system.
Until now, there has been no uniform case law on this topic. Now the Federal Court of Justice has addressed this issue in the above-mentioned judgement.
Facts: Tenancy and loss of keys
The defendant rented a condominium from the plaintiff from 1 March 2010. According to the protocol, the defendant received two keys when the flat was handed over. However, after the tenancy ended on 31 May 2010, the defendant only returned one key and denied having received a second. The property management of the homeowners' association asked the plaintiff to bear the costs of replacing the locking system in the amount of € 1,468 in order to avoid security risks. To avoid having to bear the costs alone, the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages. Although the locking system was not replaced, the plaintiff demanded € 1,367.32 from the defendant.
Lower courts: Partial success for the plaintiff
The local court partially upheld the claim and ordered the defendant to pay € 968 plus interest. The district court dismissed the defendant's appeal. The defendant lodged an appeal on points of law and applied for the judgement to be set aside in full. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that the defendant's appeal was successful.
Decision of the Federal Court of Justice: No fictitious costs
The BGH found that the plaintiff was in principle entitled to compensation as the defendant had breached its duty of care and return by not returning the key. However, the plaintiff was not obliged to bear fictitious costs for the replacement of the locking system as long as this was not actually carried out. According to the BGH, the loss of a key can only lead to compensable damage if the replacement of the locking system is necessary due to an objective risk and is actually carried out. In this case, the risk of misuse would have been realised in a financial loss, which is not the case here.
No impairment of the locking system as a material entity
The BGH also ruled that the loss of a key does not constitute damage to the locking system as a whole. The functionality of the locking system is only impaired by an actual interference with the substance, but not by the abstract loss of a key. Damage is only to be compensated if the locking system is actually replaced due to an objective risk of misuse. The mere concern about potential misuse does not justify compensation. The plaintiff's claim was therefore dismissed as unfounded.
Conclusion: Actual implementation required
The BGH ruled that a claim for damages in the event of key loss only exists if the locking system was actually replaced for security reasons. Fictitious costs or abstract risks are not sufficient to assert a claim for financial loss.
Source: Federal Court of Justice
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.