The potential problems associated with condominium ownership have been known since the Middle Ages. Since that time, there has been floor-by-floor ownership of houses, which were significantly given the slightly derisive name "Händelhaus," meaning "house of strife." Even back then, one could expect to find quarrelsome spirits in such a house who stirred up trouble among the community of owners.
It is also historically interesting to note that this type of condominium ownership still exists—although it is slowly "dying out" because the legislature created the term "condominium ownership" as a substitute with the Condominium Ownership and Permanent Residence Rights Act (WEG) of March 15, 1951. This was done to solve the severe housing shortage after World War II.
In a very recent decision by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated April 5, 2019, with the file number V ZR 339/17, condominium owners' associations are granted the right to expel troublemakers from the community if peaceful coexistence with them cannot be achieved. In the case in question, apartment owners had threatened the administration with dismissal "for good cause" if it did not comply with the wishes of the rebellious co-owners.
The peaceful condominium owners were not willing to accept this, as they were satisfied with the administration and wanted to keep it. Consequently, they passed a warning resolution against the troublemakers. The latter then filed an action for annulment against the warning and got a nasty surprise.
The Federal Court of Justice recognized the admissibility of the action, but dismissed it because the criteria for a warning had been met:
- The owners' resolution contained no formal errors,
- The prescribed procedure had been followed,
- The behavior that was the subject of the warning letter can justify the decision to revoke membership.
- The decision is sufficiently specific.
The Federal Court of Justice found that the warning decision was justified. The troublemakers were entitled to exercise their right to submit motions to the administration. Every apartment owner has this right.
In the case in question, however, this right had been abused. It was proven that the plaintiff's sole aim was to bring about a situation where there was no administrator; this was alien to condominium ownership and hostile to it. This constituted an abuse of rights.
The other owners were right to defend themselves against this request. The owners' association can demand that the troublemaker sell his condominium in accordance with § 18 WEG.
