Cologne Regional Court, April 15, 2016, Case No.: 10 S 139/15
If a tenant insults the landlord or other co-tenants, this can lead to an immediate termination of the tenancy.
However, it should be noted that the behavior before and after the insult also plays a role in determining whether an insult justifies immediate termination. For instance, if the tenant has previously insulted or threatened others and then insults again, immediate termination is usually justified.
However, if the tenant apologizes for their misconduct and it is only an isolated incident, an immediate termination might even be invalid. The same applies if the insulting tenant was previously provoked or insulted or threatened themselves.
The duration of the tenancy and the extent to which the tenancy was already burdened by other disputes are also relevant.
In the present case, the tenant not only insulted others but also caused nighttime noise disturbances and littered other tenants‘ property.
Facts of the court case:
Tenant terrorized other tenants (vacuuming, music, etc.)
The appellant in this case was a tenant of an apartment in Cologne. For over a year, she had disturbed the nighttime peace of the other tenants by banging on the floor, vacuuming, slamming doors, running the washing machine, and playing loud music from her apartment.
She had also frequently littered the terrace below her apartment by throwing down garbage and insulted co-tenants by saying, „Are you out of your mind?“
Landlord finally terminates the tenant immediately due to insults
Because of this behavior, the landlord repeatedly warned the tenant. After she again littered a co-tenant’s terrace by throwing down salad, dragged her suitcase loudly through the stairwell to the basement at 1:30 a.m., and called a co-tenant a „stupid jerk,“ the landlord declared an extraordinary immediate termination of the tenancy due to a sustained disturbance of the peace.
The initially called district court then sentenced the tenant to vacate the premises. The appellant appealed this judgment to the Cologne Regional Court.
Judgment of the Cologne Regional Court:
The appellate court confirms the judgment of the Cologne District Court
The Cologne Regional Court agreed with the district court’s view and ruled that the district court rightly sentenced the defendant to vacate and surrender the disputed apartment.
The tenancy between the parties was effectively terminated by the plaintiff’s immediate termination on July 30, 2014, as there was a significant reason within the meaning of § 543 (1), 569 (2) BGB. Such a reason exists when one party seriously disturbs the peace, making it unreasonable to expect the terminating party to continue the tenancy until the notice period expires, considering all circumstances and balancing the interests of both parties.
Tenant guilty of disturbing the peace
The requirement for mutual consideration by users of living spaces and other rooms in a building is understood as peace (Palandt, BGB, 75th edition, 2016, § 569 Rz. 11 mwN). Each party must ensure that (other) tenants are not more than unavoidably affected when exercising their rights under the rental agreement (LG Munich, NJW-RR 2013, 14; Schmidt-Futterer, Blank, Tenancy Law, 12th edition, 2015, § 569 BGB, Rz. 19). For the sustainability of the disturbance assumed by § 569 (2) BGB, neither one-off nor isolated incidents usually suffice, but repeated impairments do (Schmidt-Futterer, Blank, aaO Rz. 22; LG Munich, NJW-RR 2013, 14). Moreover, these must represent a serious violation of the mutual consideration requirement (BGH, NJW 2015, 1239). Disturbances merely in the minor area and leading only to nuisances do not justify termination under § 569 (2) BGB (OLG Düsseldorf, GuT 2007, 438). Lastly, the sustained disturbance of the peace must result in it being unreasonable to continue the contract until the ordinary termination period expires, for which the perception of a reasonable objective third party is decisive. In the required balancing of the individual case’s circumstances, especially the severity and impact of the disturbance, as well as the degree of fault, must be considered (Schmidt-Futterer, aaO, Rz. 23; Mössner in: Herberger/Martinek/Rüßmann et al., jurisPK-BGB, 7th ed. 2014, § 569 BGB, Rz. 75).
Tenant called the neighbor a „stupid jerk“
Using this standard, the requirements of § 569 (2) BGB are met. On July 23 or 24, 2014, the defendant dropped salad on her co-tenant’s terrace from her window; she also dragged her suitcase through the stairwell to the basement, causing significant noise in the early morning hours of July 25, 2014, at around 1:30 a.m.; she called her neighbor a „stupid jerk.“
These behaviors, listed in the termination letter dated July 30, 2014, were a continuation of the defendant’s previously repeatedly inappropriate – and repeatedly warned – behavior. From 2013 onwards, there were numerous nighttime disturbances in the form of banging on the floor, vacuuming, slamming doors, using the washing machine, and playing loud music from her apartment. The defendant had also repeatedly littered the terrace of the witness living below her by throwing down items such as bones, shards, earth, salad, feathers, and green waste.
Based on the witness statements and the defendant’s hearing, the Cologne Regional Court assessed the incidents between July 23 and 25, 2015, listed in the termination letter dated July 30, 2014, as a sustained disturbance of the peace within the meaning of § 569 (2) BGB. In the form of littering the terrace with salad on July 23 or 24, 2014, as well as the nighttime disturbance on July 25, 2014, around 1:30 a.m. and the subsequent insult to witness X („stupid jerk“), avoidable impairments of her co-tenant and thus disturbances of the peace occurred. These disturbances were also sustained. They were not isolated incidents but a consistent continuation of the previously identified impairments of witness X; the defendant had previously exhibited similar behaviors and had been warned by the plaintiff. This particularly applies to the repeatedly criticized nighttime disturbances, especially through loud music, and the multiple littering of witness X’s terrace. However, calling the witness a „stupid jerk“ was not the first insult by the defendant but was in line with the question a few months earlier of whether he was „out of his mind,“ which was also subject to a warning.
Previous warnings give the termination particular weight
Although the breaches of duty listed in the warnings were used up as independent reasons for termination, this does not mean they no longer matter. Instead, the fact that the defendant was previously warned several times for similar breaches of contract gives the recent breaches of duty listed in the termination letter their weight. Given this background, they appear to be an unwavering continuation of the defendant’s reckless behavior toward her co-tenants, particularly toward witness X. These disturbances are not only characterized by their frequency but also by their severity, thus displaying the characteristic of sustainability.
The chamber also did not overlook that insults, as intentional criminal acts, are generally considered serious breaches of duty, but immediate termination is usually only justified for repeated or particularly serious insults due to the often only minor consequences of such misconduct (Schmidt-Futterer, aaO, § 569 Rz. 24; Mössner in: Herberger/Martinek/Rüßmann, aaO, § 569 BGB, Rz. 75, 93 mwN). However, in this case, the insult is accompanied by the nighttime disturbance, which is recognized as a serious breach of duty and a sustained disturbance of the peace if it occurs frequently – whether by slamming doors or playing loud music (see Palandt, aaO, § 569 Rz. 13 mwN).
A noisy house is no excuse for tenant terror
Therefore, contrary to the appeal’s argument, it does not matter whether a house is particularly noisy; tenants must always adjust their behavior to the building’s conditions (Mössner in: Herberger/Martinek/Rüßmann, aaO, § 569 BGB, Rz. 98 mwN). Considering that the defendant also repeatedly littered witness X’s terrace, a breach of duty considered serious on its own, there would be no doubt about the sustainability of the disturbance of the peace caused by the defendant.
Given this background, it would not be reasonable for the plaintiff to continue the contractual relationship with the defendant until the ordinary termination period expires. Even if one assumed that the littering of the terrace and the noise disturbance – in contrast to the intentional insult – occurred negligently, the frequency and severity of the breaches of duty caused by the defendant, as well as the resulting consequences, would make continuing the contract unreasonable.
Conclusion: Conclusion: If a tenant disturbs the peace, immediate and consistent action is necessary. Warnings and, if necessary, immediate and alternatively timely terminations are the tools of choice.
Source: Cologne Regional Court
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 Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, the complexity and constant change in the subject matter make it necessary to exclude liability and guarantees.
If you need legal advice, feel free to contact us at 0221 – 80187670 or send us an email at If you require legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or send us an email at If you need employment law advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or send an email to info@mth-partner.de... info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.