BGH 1 Sep 2026 (VIII ZR 16/26): §574 BGB hardship—what buyers of tenanted flats must check before own‑use termination

What the BGH decided on 1 September 2026

The VIIIth Civil Senate decided the case VIII ZR 16/26 by order (Beschluss) on 1 September 2026. The Court set aside the appellate judgment insofar as it rejected the tenant’s hardship objection and remitted for fresh fact‑finding and a new balancing under §§574, 574a BGB. The BGH criticised that the appellate court had not sufficiently investigated alleged health risks from a forced move and indicated that, where the tenant substantiates health impairments, courts regularly need an expert medical opinion on type, extent and specific effects of the illness before deciding the hardship objection. ([dejure.org](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Aktenzeichen=VIII+ZR+16%2F26&Datum=2026-09-01&Gericht=BGH&utm_source=openai))

Two points are central. First, the BGH underlined that §574 BGB is a comprehensive hardship regime, not a narrow exception: courts must fully weigh tenant hardship against the landlord’s legitimate interests, including own use. Second, medical hardship and potential deterioration due to displacement require careful evidentiary treatment. ([dejure.org](https://dejure.org/dienste/lex/BGB/574%20/1.html?utm_source=openai))

The Court also noted that the outcome of the balancing could be different if hardship is established, up to continuing the tenancy under §574a BGB for as long as appropriate. Depending on circumstances, continuation can even be ordered for an indefinite time if it is unclear when the hardship will cease. ([datenbank.nwb.de](https://datenbank.nwb.de/Dokument/1101211/?utm_source=openai))

Why this matters if you plan an own‑use termination

For buyers of tenanted condos or apartment buildings, the decision raises the bar for predicting timelines. Even when a termination for own use under §573(2) no. 2 BGB is formally valid, the tenancy does not necessarily end on the notice date if the tenant objects under §574 BGB. Courts must comprehensively weigh hardship factors and, where health is invoked, take evidence properly—often via expert opinion—before allowing eviction. This can add months or more, and in some constellations the tenancy may be continued for an indefinite period under §574a BGB until the hardship lifts. ([dejure.org](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Aktenzeichen=VIII+ZR+16%2F26&Datum=2026-09-01&Gericht=BGH&utm_source=openai))

Hardship under §574 BGB can include serious illness risks from displacement and—in appropriate, fact‑specific cases—failure to secure suitable replacement housing on reasonable terms. The BGH has recognised that unsuccessful, reasonable apartment searches can support hardship; what counts is concrete proof of what housing would be suitable, what efforts were made, and why they failed. Expect courts to demand detailed, contemporaneous evidence. ([juris.bundesgerichtshof.de](https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/bgh_notp/document.py?Art=en&Datum=2022&Gericht=bgh&Seite=16&anz=2726&pos=495&utm_source=openai))

Checks before you buy a tenanted flat for own use

1) Hardship risk screening. Ask the seller/property manager what they know about the tenant’s health situation, disabilities, long tenancy duration and other stability factors. You cannot force disclosure of medical data, but any existing correspondence or court files matter. If there are signs of health‑related vulnerability, assume the court will require expert evidence if you later face a hardship objection. ([datenbank.nwb.de](https://datenbank.nwb.de/Dokument/1101211/?utm_source=openai))

2) Termination‑block under §577a BGB. If the flat was converted to condominium and then sold, a statutory block on own‑use terminations may apply for 3 years, extendable by state ordinance to up to 10 years in designated areas. Berlin applies 10 years city‑wide; the current ordinance runs from 1 October 2023. Verify the conversion date, first sale date and any local ordinance before bidding. ([gesetze-im-internet.de](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__577a.html?utm_source=openai))

3) When does the block start? The BGH held on 6 August 2025 (VIII ZR 161/24) that, where a company acquired the building earlier, the 10‑year clock for the acquirer’s own‑use termination began with that buyer’s acquisition of the condominium, not with the prior acquisition of the undivided property. This can push the earliest termination date years later than many assume. ([datev.de](https://www.datev.de/web/de/berufsgruppenuebergreifend/nachrichten/praxis/rechtsprechung-eigenbedarfskuendigung?utm_source=openai))

4) Plan the paperwork. A valid termination for own use requires a proper statement of reasons and the landlord’s notice must include the statutory instruction on the tenant’s right to object (Widerspruch). The tenant’s objection must be in text form (§126b BGB); if the landlord has given the instruction, the objection must reach the landlord no later than two months before the end of the notice period. If the instruction is missing, the tenant may still object in the first court hearing. Build these into your timeline templates. ([gesetze-im-internet.de](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__574b.html?utm_source=openai))

What counts as hardship and how courts test it

Statute and case law frame hardship broadly. §574 BGB lets tenants demand continuation if ending the tenancy would cause a hardship not justified even after weighing the landlord’s legitimate interests. §574a BGB empowers courts to continue the tenancy for an appropriate time—or, if the end of hardship is uncertain, for an indefinite period. The BGH’s 1 September 2026 order reinforces that courts must not treat §574 as an exception but as the central hardship mechanism. ([gesetze-im-internet.de](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__574.html?utm_source=openai))

Typical hardship constellations include documented serious illness where a move threatens deterioration, and cases where the tenant cannot obtain suitable replacement housing on reasonable terms despite serious, evidenced efforts. Crucially, a bare assertion is insufficient. Courts expect concrete proof: specialist medical attestations and, if challenged, expert opinions; search logs, applications and rejections for replacement housing; and evidence of personal and financial circumstances relevant to suitability. ([rsw.beck.de](https://rsw.beck.de/docs/librariesprovider5/beck-aktuell-dokumente/arbeitshilfe-b%C3%B6rstinghaus-bgh-mietrecht-paragraf-240314.pdf?sfvrsn=c1bb7eeb_3&utm_source=openai))

Practical implications and who to ask

- Budget time and legal costs for a hardship phase. The continuation remedy does not void your termination; it postpones its effect, sometimes for a long time and, in rare cases, without a fixed end. ([gesetze-im-internet.de](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__574a.html?utm_source=openai))

- Evidence wins or loses hardship disputes. If you are the buyer‑landlord, expect to respond to medical submissions with your own evidence and to court‑appointed expertise. If you are missing the §574b instruction in your notice, be prepared for a late objection at the first hearing. ([gesetze-im-internet.de](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__574b.html?utm_source=openai))

- Never rely on generic timelines. Check condo‑conversion history and local §577a ordinances; Berlin’s 10‑year city‑wide block from 1 October 2023 is a current example. Verify dates before you plan a move‑in. ([berlin.de](https://www.berlin.de/sen/wohnen/wissen-fuer-mieter/berliner-mietratgeber/umwandlung/?utm_source=openai))

This article is not legal advice. For a specific transaction, instruct a German tenancy lawyer (Fachanwalt für Miet‑ und Wohnungseigentumsrecht) to review the rent file, termination strategy and local §577a regime before you sign a purchase contract.