Administrative Court of Oldenburg, 22.05.2012, Case No.: 7 A 3069/12
If a person is threatened with homelessness due to an impending eviction because a replacement accommodation has not yet been found, the regulatory authorities, according to the respective public order and police laws of the federal states, are obliged to assign the person subject to eviction to emergency accommodation or to seize their current apartment.
In North Rhine-Westphalia, this is done based on the general police clause, § 14 OBG NRW:
(1) The regulatory authorities may take necessary measures to avert a danger to public security or order (danger) in a specific case.
(2) To fulfill the tasks carried out by the regulatory authorities according to special laws and regulations (§ 1, Para. 2, Sentence 1 and Para. 3), they have the powers provided therein. If such laws and regulations do not contain the powers of the regulatory authorities, they shall have the powers conferred on them under this law.
However, to protect the landlord’s rights, § 19 Para. 1 OBG NW imposes strict limits on such a seizure.
According to this provision, the regulatory authority can only take measures against other persons (landlords) if:
An imminent significant danger needs to be averted,
Measures against the persons responsible according to §§ 17 or 18 are not possible or cannot be taken in time or are unlikely to succeed,
The regulatory authority cannot avert the danger in time or itself through agents, and
The persons can be engaged without significant personal risk and without violating higher obligations.
Particularly regarding the duration of the seizure, the regulatory authority is obliged, in the landlord’s interest, to limit the period as much as possible. For this, § 19 Para. 2 OBG NW stipulates:
(2) Measures under Paragraph 1 may only be maintained as long as the danger cannot be averted in another way.
Thus, the authority must make a serious effort to find alternative housing for the person subject to eviction.
In the decision mentioned above, the Administrative Court of Oldenburg had to decide whether the apartment of a person subject to eviction could be seized to the detriment of the landlord for a period of three-quarters of a year.
Facts of the court case:
Tenants fail to pay rent and are evicted.
The plaintiff was the landlord of an apartment in Leer, East Frisia, which was occupied by a family. Due to payment arrears, the plaintiff obtained a court eviction order against the tenants. The apartment was to be forcibly vacated in August 2011.
To prevent homelessness, the municipality seized the apartment.
Since the family under the eviction order credibly demonstrated that they were threatened with homelessness due to the eviction, the municipality seized the apartment and reassigned it to the former tenants to prevent homelessness.
Subsequently, the municipality of Leer extended the temporary measure until 31.05.2012.
Landlord files lawsuit against the seizure with the administrative court.
At the end of March 2012, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the seizure ordered by the municipality with the Administrative Court of Oldenburg, arguing that, as the landlord, he should not have to tolerate that the final eviction order could not be enforced for more than three-quarters of a year.
Neither the family subject to eviction nor the municipality of Leer had made sufficient efforts to find alternative accommodation.
Judgment of the Administrative Court of Oldenburg
The VG Oldenburg followed this view. According to the Lower Saxony Law on Public Safety and Order (Nds.SOG), it is possible to confiscate a flat in the event of imminent homelessness.
Judgment of the Administrative Court of Oldenburg:
However, this option would only be available for a period of six months.
Although under the Lower Saxony Public Safety and Order Act (Nds.SOG), it is possible to seize an apartment in case of imminent homelessness, the Administrative Court of Oldenburg ruled that such a seizure is only lawful for six months.
Beyond that, the authority must demonstrate that no alternative reasonable housing is available. This was not the case here.
Source: Administrative Court of Oldenburg
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.
One Response
Does the confiscated flat have to be described in detail? Does the local authority have to ensure that the property is occupied and vacated before and after the seizure? Must the condition of the flat before and after the seizure be documented in order to prove changes (e.g. thefts)?