District Court of Cologne, June 14, 2011, Case No. 223 C 26/11
If an apartment is not in the condition agreed upon in the rental contract, the tenant has the right to reduce the rent according to § 536 of the German Civil Code (BGB). This means that the tenant can pay less rent depending on the severity of the impairment. This includes defects within the apartment itself, but it can also involve external circumstances that cause disruptions, such as construction sites. However, rent reduction is excluded under § 536b BGB if the landlord informs the tenant of the defect beforehand. In this case, the tenant is aware of the defect and can decide whether they still want to live in the apartment despite the possible disturbances. This also applies if the tenant should have recognized the defect but failed to do so due to gross negligence. When this is the case, however, is not always clear.
In the following judgment, the District Court of Cologne (AG Cologne) clarified that noise from ships near an apartment on the banks of the Rhine must be recognized by the tenant. It also stated that a clause in the rental contract regarding construction noise from neighboring sites means the tenant has acknowledged these defects. In both cases, there is no entitlement to a rent reduction.
Facts of the Case:
In this case, the parties dispute the amount of rent owed. The plaintiff is the landlord of an apartment in Cologne, and the defendant is the tenant.
In June 2009, the tenant signed the rental contract for an apartment near the banks of the Rhine in Cologne, in close proximity to the construction of the Kranhäuser, which were still under construction at the time. The rental contract mentioned that there were construction sites in the neighborhood.
Construction sites near the apartment:
There were indeed construction sites around the building, resulting in noise and dust disturbances. Furthermore, the stairway to the Severins Bridge could only be accessed via an unpaved gravel field.
The tenant also noted that on weekends and at night, inland vessels moored at the quay wall under her apartment, causing noise and odor emissions from their diesel engines.
Tenant reduced rent due to various external deficiencies:
For these reasons, the tenant decided to pay the rent only conditionally from June 2010 onward. She declared her intention to withhold rent due to her right of retention and paid almost €3,700 less from September 2010 to March 2011. She argued that she had been assured that the construction would be completed by early 2010.
As a result, the landlord sued the tenant for back payment of the outstanding amount. The tenant requested dismissal of the lawsuit.
District Court of Cologne’s ruling::
The AG Cologne ruled in favor of the landlord. It considered the claim justified and ordered the tenant to pay the outstanding €3,700 plus interest. The claim is based on § 535 II BGB, as the tenant is not entitled to a rent reduction and still underpaid the rent.
The court found no defects present:
First, the court examined whether the difficulty accessing the stairway to the Severins Bridge via the unpaved gravel field constituted a defect under § 536 BGB. Defects are conditions that prevent the apartment from being used as agreed. According to § 536 I 3 BGB, minor impairments to the agreed usability are not considered. The court did not consider the slightly obstructed access to the house as a significant limitation, as access was still possible via a small detour. This was seen as an inconvenience but not a significant impairment to the use of the rented apartment.
Noise and odors from the ships were to be tolerated:
Regarding the moored ships at the quay wall, the court left open the question of whether the noise and odor emissions constituted a defect. It ruled out rent reduction because the tenant should have been aware of this issue when signing the contract. According to § 536b S. 2 BGB, rent reduction is generally excluded in cases of gross negligence in failing to recognize the defect. An exception is only possible if the landlord fraudulently concealed the issue at the time of the contract. The court clarified that the landlord did not need to point this out, as the Rhine is one of the busiest waterways in Europe. It is common knowledge that such disturbances can occur. Due to the kilometers-long quay wall with steps down to the water, the tenant should have noticed this herself. The landlord did not need to explicitly disclose this because of its obviousness.
The tenant was aware of the construction sites upon renting:
The tenant also cannot claim a rent reduction for the nearby construction sites, as she was also aware of these under § 536b BGB. She had been informed of this in the rental contract and confirmed her knowledge by signing it. Additionally, the tenant admitted to seeing that the Kranhäuser were still under construction. Even if she was mistaken about the duration of the disturbances, this still counts as knowledge.
The court did not accept the tenant’s argument that she had been promised the construction work would end by early 2010. The alleged witness L. denied making any such binding commitment, as neither she nor the landlord had control over the completion of the construction work. Furthermore, there was no agreement in the rental contract about the end of the surrounding construction.
As such, the tenant also had no right of retention under § 320 BGB, as the landlord delivered the apartment in a condition suitable for use according to the contract. By signing the contract, the tenant accepted the mentioned restrictions, meaning the apartment was delivered in a contractually appropriate condition. A warning about potential disturbances from ship traffic does not need to be explicitly mentioned for an apartment on the Rhine, as these are obvious. They become part of the contract even without a written clause.
Consequently, the tenant wrongfully withheld rent and was ordered to repay it.
Source: AG Cologne
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