The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued a decision on 21 May 2026, under file reference I ZR 224/25, which could have far-reaching consequences for residential property management companies. The ruling stipulates that residential property managers are not permitted to demand a commission from the landlord if they broker the properties they manage to tenants. This interpretation of Section 2 (2) of the Act on the Placement of Residential Property (WoVermittG) enabled a property owner to assert claims for reimbursement against his former manager for commissions already paid. The BGH's reasoning is based on the assumption that tenants would be indirectly burdened by such commission payments, as these tend to lead to rent increases.
Professor Dr Martin Häublein, of counsel at the law firm Müller Radack Schultz and a member of the Federal Government's expert commission on tenancy law, has thoroughly examined the BGH decision. In the Neue Zeitschrift für Miet- und Wohnungsrecht (NZM 2026, 775), he expresses legal concerns about the ruling. Häublein emphasises that the decision leads to "catastrophic results", as property owners could be awarded reimbursement claims amounting to six or even seven-figure sums. This would endanger the economic stability of numerous management companies, even though they had provided their services to the owners without complaint.
Legal Argumentation and Consequences
Professor Dr Häublein also disputes the validity of the argument regarding an indirect burden on tenants through commission payments. He points out that the rent control brake prevents the passing on of costs by the legislator. With the introduction of the rent control brake in 2015, the ‘Bestellerprinzip’ (payer principle) was also implemented, which fundamentally prohibits demanding a commission from prospective tenants (Section 2 (1a) WoVermittG).
The legal scholar criticises that the BGH does not address the fact that the legislator explicitly did not consider it necessary to exclude commission claims also against the landlord's side in order to protect tenants. Häublein deems this a "more than amateurish mistake". According to his assessment, the decision could even have a detrimental effect on tenants. He argues that managers often offer brokerage services more cheaply than traditional estate agents, as they already have relevant property information. Thus, the ruling specifically targets players who could contribute to cost reduction.
Unequal Treatment and the Need for Legislative Action
Professor Dr Häublein sees the BGH decision as unequal treatment in the sense of Article 3 of the Basic Law, as estate agents and residential property managers can still demand commissions. He calls on the legislator to correct what he considers an "irresponsible decision". According to the original meaning and purpose of Section 2 (2) WoVermittG, only claims against prospective tenants, but not against the landlord's side, should have been explicitly excluded. The development of the legal framework therefore remains of great importance for the real estate industry.
