Noise from children’s screaming and the sounds caused by their need to move and play is generally considered part of the ordinary, contractual use of a rental apartment. Therefore, if the issue is solely child-related noise, an immediate or standard termination is only possible if the disturbance significantly exceeds the usual level. In the case presented here, although it involved noise from children, the primary issue was ongoing noise disturbances from the entire family, including the parents.
Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff sued for eviction against an 8-member family
The plaintiff in this case was the landlord, and the defendants were a family with six children, aged between 6 months and 10 years, who rented an apartment on the third floor of an eight-unit building. The defendants lived in this apartment with their six children.
The family was repeatedly noticed for screaming, loud music, and arguments
For some time, several other residents in the building had complained about the defendants‘ living behavior, particularly the ongoing noise disturbances. For this reason, the plaintiff issued a written warning on January 27, 2022, regarding noise disturbances caused by screaming, music, and arguments, primarily at night, between December 30, 2021, and January 16, 2022. Another warning, issued by the plaintiff’s lawyer, followed on March 10, 2022. This warning also concerned noise from loud conversations, screaming, music, as well as late-night laundry washing, moving furniture, and playing football in the apartment. The police had also been called multiple times. On June 23, 2022, a third warning was issued for noise disturbances between April 5, 2022, and June 19, 2022. Despite these warnings, the disturbances continued, and other residents continued to report them.
Neither the police nor the warnings had any effect on the noise
At a subsequent children’s birthday party in the defendants‘ apartment, noise was heard from 6:00 p.m. until 6:30 a.m. the next day. Once again, the police were called. On the night of November 19 to November 20, 2022, noise was again heard from the apartment around 1:00 a.m. Loud conversations, apparent arguments, and constant furniture movement continued for about 1 to 1.5 hours.
Finally, the landlord terminated the lease without notice and filed for eviction
Due to these further disturbances, the plaintiff terminated the lease without notice on December 5, 2022, or alternatively, with notice for March 31, 2023. With a letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer on March 8, 2023, which the defendants received on March 10, 2023, the plaintiff again terminated the lease without notice due to further noise disturbances on the nights of February 19, 2023, and February 26/27, 2023.
Another immediate termination followed on June 20, 2023, regarding further noise disturbances due to music, screaming, and loud conversations on April 9, May 13, and May 29, 2023. Finally, on July 6, 2023, the plaintiff again terminated the lease without notice, citing another noise disturbance on June 15, 2023, and alternatively, with notice.
The plaintiff then filed an eviction lawsuit with the Münster District Court. The defendants denied all accusations and argued that the building was poorly constructed and therefore very noisy. They admitted that an eight-member family naturally generates a certain level of noise but maintained that the children were always encouraged to keep quiet.
Decision of the Münster District Court
The court ruled that the landlord had effectively terminated the lease
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to evict the defendants and take possession of the disputed apartment under Section 546(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB). The lease had already been terminated by the first notice on December 5, 2022.
The termination, which was indisputably received by the defendants on December 7, 2022, was valid.
The plaintiff was entitled to terminate the lease without notice under Section 543(1), (3) sentence 1 BGB, as the ongoing disturbance of domestic peace constituted a valid reason for such termination. A serious disturbance of domestic peace requires that one party to the lease violates their duty of mutual consideration under Section 241(2) BGB by using the rental property in such a way that other tenants are unavoidably disturbed in a significant way.
The witnesses confirmed that the family repeatedly caused noise disturbances
Based on the evidence presented, the court was convinced that the defendants had violated their contractual obligations through repeated noise disturbances and had thus seriously disturbed the domestic peace. Witnesses consistently and credibly reported that since the defendants moved in during 2018, they had repeatedly played loud music, talked, screamed, and moved furniture, often after 10:00 p.m. and sometimes into the early morning hours. Neither requests for quiet nor police interventions had had any lasting effect.
The fact that neither police nor warnings changed their behavior weighed heavily
The court also found that the noise disturbances were caused by the defendants‘ behavior and could not be solely attributed to the poor construction of the building. A witness acknowledged that the building was indeed noisy and that doors slamming could be heard, but also testified that normal conversations from neighboring apartments could not be heard. The disturbances caused by the defendants went far beyond the normal use of the apartment. Regular late-night parties, especially on weekdays, and loud arguments would not constitute normal use, even in a poorly soundproofed building. Therefore, this case did not primarily involve children’s noise, which must generally be tolerated.
Although the building was poorly soundproofed, this did not alter the disturbance of domestic peace
The plaintiff had sufficiently warned the defendants before terminating the lease without notice, giving them two previous warnings for similar offenses with a reference to the possibility of termination. The fact that the defendants‘ behavior did not change after the warnings, as evidenced by further complaints from other tenants, justified the termination.
Due to the threat of homelessness, a long eviction period had to be granted to the defendants
However, the defendants were granted an extended eviction period under Section 721 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). A balance of the parties’ interests supported granting a relatively long period for eviction. The court recognized the significant interest of the plaintiff in stopping the ongoing disturbance of domestic peace caused by the noise. Given the defendants‘ behavior, there was little hope of improvement. However, eviction would leave a family of six, including very young children, homeless, which would have dramatic consequences. A new apartment for an eight-member family would be hard to find, and the plaintiff had not offered an alternative. Thus, a long eviction period was considered appropriate, despite the culpable noise disturbances.
Source: District Court of Münster
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 changes in the subject matter, liability and guarantees are excluded.Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the legal field, we exclude liability and warranties.
If you need legal advice, please 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.