District Court of Charlottenburg, January 14, 2020, Case No. 203 C 31/19
Under the principle of private autonomy in private law, which derives from the general freedom of action under Article 2 of the German Basic Law (GG), individuals are free to choose their contractual partners and may reject them. However, the legislator has enacted the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) to prevent or eliminate discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual identity. This applies particularly to access to publicly offered housing under § 2 I No. 8 AGG. If there is a violation of the prohibition of discrimination, the affected person is entitled to various claims. According to § 21 AGG, they can demand the elimination of discrimination (§ 21 I 1 AGG) and future abstention from such behavior (§ 21 I 2 AGG). Additionally, they are entitled to claim compensation (§ 21 II 1 AGG). If the damage is non-material, such as a violation of personal rights, the victim can also claim financial compensation. Proving discrimination, however, is not always easy.
In the following ruling, the District Court of Charlottenburg clarified that sufficient evidence of ethnic discrimination during the application process for an apartment can justify a claim for damages.
Facts of the Case:
A rejected Turkish apartment applicant claims compensation for discrimination
In this case, the parties disputed whether one party discriminated against the other during the apartment allocation process due to their name. The plaintiff was an apartment applicant with a Turkish-sounding name, and the defendant was a landlord offering more than 100,000 apartments in Berlin.
In October 2018, the plaintiff applied for a viewing of an apartment advertised by the defendant. The application included only the plaintiff’s name and contact details, without any other personal information. The application was rejected, citing the number of other applicants. On the day of the rejection, the plaintiff reapplied for the same apartment using a fictitious German-sounding name and received an invitation to view the apartment the next day. The plaintiff went to the defendant’s service point and submitted his application materials. Despite the invitation, a staff member informed him that the apartment had already been rented out. The plaintiff then asked a colleague, uninvolved in the matter, to pose as the man with the fictitious name and inquire about the apartment’s status. The defendant’s employee, over the phone, confirmed that the apartment was still available for viewing.
The plaintiff had applied to several apartment listings from the defendant
In November, the same scenario occurred for another apartment advertised by the defendant. The plaintiff then contacted the Berlin Anti-Discrimination Office for Housing, which confronted the defendant with the case. The Anti-Discrimination Office pointed out that discrimination in violation of § 21 AGG had occurred. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted claims for elimination, abstention, damages, and compensation. The defendant rejected the discrimination claim, arguing that an error occurred due to the large volume of applications.
The plaintiff also reported that his email address was blocked for online inquiries on the defendant’s website after the Anti-Discrimination Office sent a letter to the defendant.
The plaintiff requested that the court order the defendant to pay appropriate compensation.
The defendant argued that invitations and rejections were distributed randomly and that its employees did not discriminate based on whether a name sounded German or Turkish. It also denied blocking the plaintiff’s email address, explaining that it had only been put in a mode that disabled automatically generated responses while it internally reviewed the plaintiff’s accusations. Additionally, the defendant asserted that its employees believed they were acting in accordance with the AGG, and therefore, no fault could be established.
The defendant requested the court to dismiss the case.
Ruling of the District Court of Charlottenburg:
District Court of Charlottenburg ordered the landlord to pay EUR 3,000.00 in damages
The District Court of Charlottenburg ruled that the claim was admissible and well-founded, ordering the defendant to pay €3,000 to the plaintiff.
The court first determined that the AGG was applicable, as the dispute concerned the public offering of housing under § 2 I No. 8 AGG. It further concluded that the evidence indicated the rejection was based on the plaintiff’s Turkish-sounding name, and the defendant could not prove otherwise. As such, the court confirmed a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin under § 19 II AGG. The discrimination was evident in the less favorable treatment of a comparable situation for reasons outlined in § 1 AGG, in this case, ethnic origin. This applied even in the pre-rental stage during the application process.
An applicant with a German-sounding name was treated more favorably
An applicant with a German-sounding name was treated more favorably than an applicant with a Turkish-sounding name, which the plaintiff was able to demonstrate with sufficient evidence. The court also found that the „testing procedure“ carried out by the plaintiff and his colleague using a false name was permissible. The defendant failed to refute the compelling evidence. The court was convinced that the rejection was at least possibly based on ethnic origin. A staff member testified that they considered maintaining a „healthy mix“ in the apartment building, including the applicants‘ origins. Although she later softened this statement, the court had significant doubts and noted further inconsistencies. While a „healthy mix“ could justify unequal treatment under § 19 III AGG for „positive measures“ as per § 5 AGG, the defendant could not substantiate this purpose.
The court found that the discrimination was at least negligent
The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s claim under § 21 II 3 AGG required intentional discrimination, as no such limitation was evident. It further determined that the discrimination was at least negligent. The court reasoned that the defendant made no meaningful efforts to prevent such discrimination, for example, by failing to provide training to its staff, which would have been expected given the large number of apartments (over 100,000) it rented out.
In determining the amount of damages, the court considered the satisfaction of the victim, the severity of the violation of personal rights, and the preventive effect of the award. The court also factored in the degree of fault and intent behind the discrimination. It deemed €3,000 to be appropriate, emphasizing that the plaintiff was significantly restricted in his access to a substantial portion of the Berlin housing market due to the defendant’s large portfolio.
Finally, the court noted the two-month deadline in § 21 V AGG, within which the plaintiff must assert his claim to the defendant.
Source: District Court of Charlottenburg
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, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de