Overview of the Hanau Regional Court’s Decision on the Facilitated Termination under § 573a BGB
On October 25, 2023 (Case No.: 2 S 107/22, not legally binding), the Hanau Regional Court thoroughly examined whether a landlord of an apartment used only on a weekly basis can invoke a facilitated termination right pursuant to § 573a BGB. In particular, the court had to clarify whether the purpose for which the tenant uses the apartment affects the applicability of the statutory termination privilege. The following analysis addresses the essential content of the decision and sheds light on the jurisprudential context.
Basic Principles of Termination Rights in Residential Tenancy Relationships
Termination Rights without Just Cause under § 573a BGB
Under current law, the ordinary termination of a residential lease by the landlord is generally tied to a justified interest pursuant to § 573 para. 1 sentence 1 BGB – such as personal use or economic utilization. § 573a BGB creates an exception by allowing certain small apartments to be terminated without specifying a special reason, provided the landlord lives in the same building and the building contains no more than two apartments.
Legislator’s Motivation
The background of this special regulation is primarily the protection of private landlords vis-à-vis the tenant’s protection needs. This typically applies to so-called two-family houses where the landlord and one other tenant household jointly occupy the building. The legislator aimed to address the narrowly limited conflict of interest between the parties and to consider the social bond between tenant and landlord.
The Hanau Regional Court’s Ruling: Essential Considerations
Key Criteria for Applying § 573a BGB
In the case at hand, the landlord permanently occupied one apartment in the house, while the rented unit was used only by the tenant and his daughter on certain weekends. The apartment remained vacant between usage intervals. The landlord requested the application of the facilitated termination option pursuant to § 573a para. 1 BGB in the termination letter.
However, the Hanau Regional Court pointed out that the statutory requirement of a “dwelling occupied with no more than two apartments” within the meaning of § 573a BGB presupposes the tenant’s permanent use of the rented apartment as their main place of residence. If, as in this case, the usage is merely occasional or temporary – for example, as a weekend residence – this contradicts the applicability of § 573a BGB.
Distinction from Other Forms of Residential Use
With this view, the Regional Court adopts a restrictive interpretation of § 573a BGB. Lower courts maintain a clear stance: The social protection function of residential tenancy law, as expressed in § 573a BGB, should only apply if the tenant uses the rented premises as their main residence or at least for permanent living. Temporary, specifically limited uses – such as weekend homes, secondary residences, or holiday apartments – do not meet the essential requirements.
The court also derived this from the fact that differing rental use constellations (e.g., rental of residential space for holiday purposes, commuter apartments, or typical secondary residences) are regularly associated with interests different from those in classic residential tenancy with permanent residence.
Significance for Contracting Parties in Residential Tenancy Relationships
Practical Consequences of the Decision
Landlords’ freedom to dispose of rented residential space is significantly restricted as soon as the tenant’s actual, permanently established main residence is located in the rental property. Mere temporary use, however, does not grant access to the facilitated termination option. For tenancy relationships typically characterized by occasional or seasonal use, only the ordinary termination with proof of a justified interest is available.
Alignment with Legal Development
With its decision, the Hanau Regional Court follows the prevailing view in legal literature and case law. The differentiation according to the actual residential purpose is consistent, as only in this way can the protective mechanisms of asymmetric rental relationships – tenant protection versus landlord interest – be preserved. Courts consistently emphasize that usage oriented toward the tenant’s actual main residence is the decisive criterion to prevent abuse of the facilitated termination right.
Outlook and Importance for Future Jurisprudence
The Hanau Regional Court’s decision concretizes case law and provides additional clarity regarding the applicability of § 573a BGB. Especially for landlords, the ruling provides orientation that the exceptionally granted termination rights must be understood as narrowly defined protective instruments within the law. For tenants, it ensures that extensive protection against unjustified termination cannot be circumvented even in the case of partial use of an apartment.
In future contractual arrangements concerning apartments that are not exclusively used as a permanent main residence, the context of actual usage will likely be decisive and applicable to additional cases. Given partly differing regulations and new forms of housing, a differentiated consideration is becoming increasingly important.
Note on the current legal situation
The judgment of the Hanau District Court is not yet legally binding; possible appeals may influence the outcome. Therefore, a final clarification of the legal question must be awaited provisionally (as of 27.10.2025, source: urteile.news).
If you have questions in your business or private activities regarding legally secure design of tenancy agreements, termination rights, or the distinction between different uses of residential space, experienced lawyers at Real Estate Law Advisory at MTR Legal are available to comprehensively assess and evaluate the multifaceted framework conditions of your individual situation.
