Of particular influence on the admissibility of the facilitated termination is the question of how the affected building is actually used and is divided. Two decisions of the Federal Court of Justice illustrate this. In the recent judgment of the Federal Court of justice by the 17.11.2010 (BGH VIII ZR 90/10) was a landlord and owner of a building with three apartments, of which he himself used two, forbidden to terminate the tenant of the third apartment using section 573a para 1 BGB. The Supreme Court pointed out, that is irrelevant for the determination of the number of apartments in the building, how many homes use the landlord. Since in the present case, three units are available, an application of the section 573a would ABS. 1 BGB not in question.

In contrast, was on June 25, 2008 the 8th civil Senate of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH VIII ZR 307/07) the landlord side special termination in a building with two apartments and other commercial premises for law. The Federal Court stated in its judgment, industrial shared rooms would not considered even if they were in a former apartment, apartment in the sense of section 573a para 1 BGB, if they would not have been used at the time of the conclusion of the lease as a living room. As the BGH judgment practice shows, various factors affect the admissibility of a special notice in accordance with section 573a ABS. 1 BGB a, which does not easily reveal themselves without an experienced legal counsel. The Nuremberg firm Pach & Pach is a concern which she devoted many years with full commitment and professional expertise enable every client the best possible implementation of tenancy interests. For professional legal representation and advice therefore it stands ready at any time. Press contact lawyers Pach & Pach Schonhoverstrasse 31 90409 Nurnberg phone: 0911-56 92 28-0 fax: 0911-56 92 28 27 email: Homepage: