Background
The defendant had rented the plaintiff’s apartment since 1996 and lived there with his then-17-year-old son. In February 2024, the landlord terminated the tenancy on the ground that her granddaughter needed the apartment. The tenant opposed termination under Sections 574 and following of the German Civil Code, alleging serious physical and psychiatric illnesses—including severe depression—and an inability to relocate without grave health consequences.
The Nuremberg Local Court dismissed the landlord’s possession claim after finding no qualifying personal need. On appeal, the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court found that the granddaughter did need the apartment and ordered the tenant to vacate. After hearing the tenant’s treating physicians and psychologist, it rejected his hardship defense without commissioning an independent expert report. It also summarily rejected his claim that he could not obtain suitable replacement housing despite approximately 400 unsuccessful inquiries. The tenant filed a complaint against the refusal to allow an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Justice vacated the appellate judgment, including its costs ruling, insofar as it decided the statutory hardship issue against the tenant, and remanded for further proceedings. It did not disturb the finding that the landlord had established personal need. The court held that the Regional Court repeatedly violated the tenant’s constitutional right to be heard under Article 103(1) of the Basic Law.
First, the tenant’s detailed medical submissions and supporting certificates required an expert assessment of the likely health consequences of a forced move, including their severity and probability. Treating professionals testifying as expert witnesses were not an adequate substitute because the necessary forward-looking medical prognosis was a matter for an appointed expert. Refusing the requested expert evidence because the court believed the existing testimony had already resolved the issue amounted to impermissible anticipatory evaluation of evidence.
Second, the Regional Court failed meaningfully to consider the tenant’s evidence that suitable replacement housing could not be obtained on reasonable terms, a separate hardship ground under Section 574(2). Its formulaic reference to the supposed “exceptional character” of Section 574 was legally flawed: the provision is not an exception that must be applied restrictively. On remand, the court must investigate both hardship grounds and may fashion continued-tenancy terms under Section 574a that accommodate the parties’ competing interests.
Key Takeaways
- A tenant need not prove complete inability to move; a serious risk that relocation will substantially worsen a severe illness may constitute hardship under Section 574(1).
- When a tenant substantiates grave health risks with meaningful medical certificates, the trial court ordinarily must obtain an expert report addressing the nature, severity, probability, and possible mitigation of those risks.
- Courts must separately and substantively assess evidence that reasonable replacement housing is unavailable, and Section 574 is not subject to restrictive treatment as an exceptional provision.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces demanding evidentiary safeguards in personal-need eviction cases involving alleged threats to life or health. Testimony from treating clinicians may supply relevant facts, but it generally cannot replace an independent expert’s forward-looking assessment of how forced relocation is likely to affect the tenant.
The ruling also confirms that hardship analysis extends beyond medical condition alone. Demonstrated inability to secure reasonable substitute housing must receive genuine consideration, and courts may respond with a tailored, potentially time-limited continuation of the tenancy rather than treating eviction and indefinite continuation as the only alternatives.