On 21 May 2026, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) (Case No. I ZR 224/25) ruled that property managers of residential premises cannot claim a commission from the landlord either when they arrange for tenants to let the flats they manage. Through this interpretation of Section 2(2) of the Residential Property Agency Act (WoVermittG), the BGH granted a residential property owner a claim for the recovery of commissions paid against his former property manager, on the grounds that tenants were indirectly burdened by the commission payments because these increased the rent.
Prof. Dr Martin Häublein, of counsel at the law firm Müller Radack Schultz, has examined the Federal Court of Justice’s ruling in depth and considers it to be legally flawed (see Häublein, Neue Zeitschrift für Miet- und Wohnungsrecht – NZM – 2026, 775): “Above all, however, the judgement leads to disastrous consequences. Under the pretext of tenant protection, property owners are being awarded immense claims for reimbursement – amounts running into six or even seven figures, depending on the case. These claims jeopardise the financial stability of many property management companies, even though they have provided their services to the owners without any complaints.”
Häublein, who sits on the Federal Government’s expert commission on tenancy law, argues that the Federal Court of Justice’s claim that tenants are indirectly burdened by the commissions is not a valid argument, because the legislature prevents the passing on of costs through the rent cap. The ‘buyer pays’ principle was also introduced in 2015 alongside the rent cap. Under this principle, the estate agent may not, as a rule, charge a commission to the person seeking accommodation (Section 2(1a) of the Housing Agency Act (WoVermittG)). “Clearly, the legislature did not consider it necessary to also exclude commission claims against landlords in order to protect tenants from these costs. The Federal Court of Justice makes no mention of this whatsoever, which is more than just a technical error,” said the legal scholar.
As a result, the ruling could even work to the detriment of tenants. “Practice shows that property managers often offer their agency services at a lower cost than estate agents. This is also plausible, as property managers already have the necessary information and data at their disposal. The Federal Court of Justice is therefore targeting, of all people, the very parties who can help to reduce costs.” In Häublein’s view, the ruling results in unequal treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Basic Law, because estate agents, as well as property managers, can charge commissions. He believes the legislature has a responsibility to rectify what he considers to be an irresponsible decision. In accordance with the spirit and purpose of Section 2(2) of the Residential Tenancies Agency Act (WoVermittG), only claims against the person seeking accommodation are explicitly to be excluded, but not those against the landlord.
