BGH decides: Psychotherapy report is sufficient for rental protection!

BGH decides: Psychotherapy report is sufficient for rental protection!

In a recent ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the importance of health hardship reasons in tenancy law is being reassessed. Accordingly, a tenant can object to a termination for personal use if he can present valid health reasons to the court. A specialist's certificate is not absolutely necessary, as became clear in a case in which a tenant submitted a statement from a psychoanalyst. This description showed regular psychotherapeutic sessions and acute depression on the part of the tenant, but this was not considered sufficient by the district and regional courts. They rejected the objection as unfounded and approved the eviction action. The Report from Haufe supports this representation and emphasizes that the BGH overturned the judgment and remanded the case for further examination.

The background to this decision lies in Section 574 of the Civil Code (BGB). According to this paragraph, a tenant has the right to object to termination if the termination of the tenancy would cause an undue hardship. It should be noted that moving can often pose significant health risks for tenants. However, the tenant is obliged to explain and provide evidence of the relevant circumstances in detail. Even if a specialist medical certificate is not necessarily required, a detailed statement from a qualified practitioner is necessary to substantiate the health risks. According to de.jure There are already 501 decisions dealing with the topic, which shows how deeply the topic is anchored in German tenancy law.

Consequences for future rental disputes

The ruling now available could have significant implications for future rental disputes. Previous decisions, such as those of the Federal Court of Justice of April 16, 2025 on health hardships, could be modified by the new case law. The regional court, to which the case was referred back, now faces the challenge of clarifying whether the basis for a health objection actually exists. This is also influenced by relevant decisions, such as the BGH's rulings on terminations for personal use and the appropriate consideration of tenant hardship. In these cases, careful consideration of the interests of tenants and landlords is becoming increasingly important.

Overall, the BGH ruling shows that the judicial review of terminations for personal use in the context of health aspects must be carried out more strictly and differentiated. It remains to be seen what precedents future case law will produce and to what extent these can further improve tenant protection.