46

The Daily Mail reports:

German woman becomes the second to be evicted from her home to make room for migrants

[...]

A German woman is being booted out of her home of 23 years to make room for migrants. Gabrielle Keller is the second such case to emerge in the country as it struggles to cope with an expected influx of some 800,000 refugees this year.

Did this actually happen? If so, was there a reasonable explanation such as the evicted families being evicted for unrelated reasons?

Community
  • 1
Comic Sans Strikephim
  • 1,855
  • 2
  • 17
  • 22
  • A few points for those who might not click through: She's not being "evicted"; she's being told that her rent contract will end and not be renewed. She's not being kicked out on the spot; her contract is through the end of the year. Her "home" is a rented apartment that belongs to the city of Eschbach. – Kyralessa Sep 18 '16 at 08:34

3 Answers3

64

These cases have been well covered by German media as well, and since both the tenants, the location and the municipal politicians have been named, the cases can easily be verified and I don't see any reason to doubt it. Just to mention a few of the articles about this specific case:

What is not so clear from the Daily Mail article is that Gabrielle Keller is renting an apartment from the municipality, a rather uncommon situation in Germany, since the municipalities themselves usually don't own houses usable as living space.

The termination of (housing) rental contracts is regulated in the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) §573 which rather vaguely states:

Der Vermieter kann nur kündigen, wenn er ein berechtigtes Interesse an der Beendigung des Mietverhältnisses hat.

My English translation:

The landlord can only then terminate (the contract), when he has a justified interest in the termination of the tenancy.

The civil code continues with an incomplete list of justified interests. Most commonly, the termination of a German rental contract is justified with the landlord's personal need.

The highest court in Germany (Federal Court of Justice of Germany, Bundesgerichtshof) has in their verdict VIII ZR 238/11 already ruled that the 'justified interest' requirement is fulfilled for a legal entity (in this case, the municipailty as landlord is a legal entity and not a natural person) if the entity needs the housing space to fulfil official duties.

Even if the exact circumstances are different in the high court verdict, the German municipalities have been required to shelter a given number of refugees and they are hence justifying the cancellation of the rental contracts with their demand for housing space to fulfil their official duties. In most of the covered cases, the current tenants have disputed the termination notice and if it comes to a court ruling, the courts may of course rule differently, since the surrounding circumstances are different.

Also very different opinions have been expressed on the legal standing of the termination of the rental contracts. In the article from the Badische Zeitung, Udo Kasper from 'Mieterbund Baden-Württemberg' (a tenants' association) claims the termination to be void, since equal interests and requirements of two tenants are played against each other. He continues: 'The last consequence of the situation would be: The municipality evicts the current tenant. The municipality would then be responsible for finding accomodation for the now homeless woman. They would have to provide her with living quarters.' So far so good, however the municipality would not be required to provide the current tenant with a 78m² appartment, in which she lives alone.

In a followup article in Focus, 'lawyers' (they are not named) consider the termination void, since it is justified with the municipality's own need. According to the quoted lawyers, the concept of 'own need' or 'personal need' (Eigenbedarf) as defined in the German Civil Code can allegedly only be applied by natural persons and not a municipality. This opinion is however in contradiction with the court verdict I linked to, in which the highest court has already ruled that the principle of 'Eigenbedarf' can be claimed by legal entities as well.

In the Die Welt article, Wiebke Werner from another tenants' association finds the termination not necessarily disqualified and states: 'it depends on the assessment of each single case'.

Community
  • 1
Tor-Einar Jarnbjo
  • 6,460
  • 1
  • 37
  • 34
  • 2
    "and they are hence justifying the cancellation of the rental contracts with their demand for housing space to fulfil their official duties. " - why can't they fulfill their duties by paying to rent, or buy, space owned by someone else? – Random832 Oct 08 '15 at 17:44
  • 4
    @Random832 I don't know the details in this case, but it might simply be a problem that there is nothing else to rent or buy. In this case, Gabrielle Keller has been quoted by media to initially agree to the cancellation of her contract, but disputing it after she realized that she is not able to find new housing for herself. If she can't find a new apartment, there is most likely nothing else on the market for the municipality to rent or buy either. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Oct 08 '15 at 18:15
  • @Random832 [The major of Eschenbach explained that in an interview](http://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/news/mieter-kuendigung-wegen-fluechtlingen--das-sagt-der-buergermeister-von-eschbach-6479738.html). Gabrielle Keller pays a rent that is considerably below the usual rates, however when renting new space the city would have to pay full market prices. It seemed more prudent in terms of city finances to use a property that already belonged to the city to house a family (seeing that the single tenant can now afford market rates, albeit for a smaller apartment). –  Oct 09 '15 at 07:32
  • "renting an apartment from the municipality, a rather uncommon situation in Germany" It's not so uncommon. According to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunale_Wohnungsgesellschaft, more than 5 million people live in apartments rented from publicly owned housing companies. –  Oct 09 '15 at 07:36
  • 4
    @StefanWalter: I think her case is even differet, while the Wohnungsbaugesellschaften are often 100% owned by the municipality, in this case the house is directly owned by the municipality. In the former case, they would not have the right to evict her, since they would not legally be the landlords. – PlasmaHH Oct 09 '15 at 08:26
  • 1
    If you say that the cases have been well covered, please provide links to establish that fact. – Christian Oct 09 '15 at 08:32
  • @Christian I hope the first seven Google results when searching for the woman's name and city are enough? – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Oct 09 '15 at 10:20
  • Many cities in Germany do own property. It's typically an [eminent domain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain) thing: the city will buy up a block of run-down buildings and restore them; or sometimes the buildings aren't in terrible condition but the town wants the buildings to appear as they would have when they were built. – David Oct 09 '15 at 12:46
  • OT and IANAL, but I'm somewhat shocked by the referenced court ruling in that the list in §732 2 (2) mentions only the landlord "himself" (but the municipality will not live there as only natural persons can do that) or "family members" (which can only apply to natural persons) or "members of the same household" (which is understood as a multitude of people living together, where people are natural persons). Then again, §573 2 says "insbesondere" (especially), so court rulings *may* deem unlisted situations as equivalent (except those - essentially "greed" - in the negative list of §573 2 (3)) – Hagen von Eitzen Oct 10 '15 at 11:14
  • I'm having a hard time understanding the "yes/no" answer on this question. Have these tenants been evicted, or have they only been served eviction notices that will be difficult to enforce? – Kevin Oct 10 '15 at 22:31
  • 1
    @Kevin I already wrote: ' In most of the covered cases, the current tenants have disputed the termination notice and if it comes to a court ruling, the courts may of course rule differently, since the surrounding circumstances are different.' Doesn't that answer your question? If not, please clarify what you're not understanding. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Oct 10 '15 at 22:59
  • @Tor-EinarJarnbjo That answers my question, thanks! – Kevin Oct 10 '15 at 23:20
  • Please don't cite Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten. It's a right-wing crackpot site and not worthy of a place called "Skeptics". – wnrph Nov 09 '15 at 08:59
  • @artistoex I have not cited Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten, but I added a list of links to different German sites reporting on the case, because Christian asked for such a list. In this case, the article in DWN is also authored in a rather neutral language and is even critizising right-wing extremists in the last paragraph. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Nov 09 '15 at 14:51
  • @Tor-EinarJarnbjo from [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite#Pronunciation) to cite: 2. To list the sources from which one took information, words or literary or verbal context. – wnrph Nov 10 '15 at 13:37
  • @artistoex I'll try again: I have not cited (also not in the meaning of the word according to Wiktionary) DWN. I originally stated that the cases 'have been well covered by German media' and Christian asked for links to establish my claim, so I listed and linked to some of the articles. Thereby I have merely stated that DWN reported on the issue, I have not cited them and not used any of the article content. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Nov 10 '15 at 14:07
  • @Tor-EinarJarnbjo So let's not call it a citation. Anyway, your argument goes like this: Because the media xyz covered the event, there is no reason for doubt. Well, except you doubt the credibility of xyz. For this reason, your argument implicitly makes DWN appear reputable--which is not. – wnrph Nov 10 '15 at 14:57
6

I've edited my answer with a few more links. They're all German, so I didn't cite them earlier.

The subject line was:

Have German citizens been evicted to make room for refugees?

  • The citizenship of a tenant shouldn't matter here. The question should be if a legal tenant has been evicted to make room for refugees.
  • The question strongly implies that it is talking only about evictions from a family home. Other posters have answered that there were a few isolated cases, which will probably not be upheld in court. A more common case (and a slightly different question) are evictions from commercial buildings.

German state and municipal authorities are now routinely seizing buildings, both empty buildings and e.g. sports facilities, to house refugees.

News article by Focus about the general trend, mentioning a few specific cases (German language).

News Article by Der Spiegel about the applicable laws (German language).

They are required to pay compensation for such temporary use, and in many cases it happens with the tacit approval of the owners.

News article by taz about the seizure of a former bank building (German language). Not mentioned in the article is that there are now negotiations to buy it at market rates from the current owner. The building had been used by a TV production company as a set for banks, so it wasn't completely empty.

Having seized the building to prevent a present danger (link to the law, German language) to persons (i.e. the refugees seeking shelter), it becomes possible for the city to disregard building codes which would apply if they had rented it for the purpose. For example, refugees have been put into office buildings without showers; the showers were set up a few days later in containers outside. They can also disregard problems like asbestos if they think that temporarily living inside the building is safer than living outside in the rain.

Germany uses the Königsteiner Schlüssel to distribute refugees, a quota system named after the town where it was agreed, and most states then distribute the refugees further. The two cases mentioned in the press are apparently errors of judgement by small town administrations who are required to house a few refugees, they seem unlikely to stand up to legal scrutiny. Bigger cities are slightly more professional, and they don't bother with single apartments either.

o.m.
  • 176
  • 6
  • 1
    I'm not clear on how temporary use of a building is considered seizing the building. Doesn't seizure usually mean taking possession of evidence or property as part of a criminal investigation? – barbecue Oct 08 '15 at 22:25
  • The following parts of your answer seem to be irrelevant to the question: Whether they are seizing buildings, how they justify seizing buildings, whether they ignore building codes, how they agreed to distribute refugees. – Oddthinking Oct 09 '15 at 00:57
  • 1
    Please provide references to support your claims that (a) the two cases mentioned in the press actually happened, and (b) that they are errors of judgement. – Oddthinking Oct 09 '15 at 00:57
  • 1
    @barbecue, the German word is Beschlagnahme. That can happen in criminal cases *or* as part of a disaster response. – o.m. Oct 09 '15 at 05:54
  • @Oddthinking, the quota explains why small town mayors did give *tenants* notice to leave. The seizure of other buildings explains how properties have been taken away from their *owners*, and the building codes explain why this is commonly a legal fiction -- the owner and the authorities agree to house refugees, and seizure with compensation are a more suitable legal framework than a lease contract. – o.m. Oct 09 '15 at 06:01
  • @Oddthinking, another German language source: http://www.badische-zeitung.de/suedwest-1/gemeinde-eschbach-kuendigt-mieterin-um-fluechtlinge-unterzubringen--112024885.html mentioning (a) the case and (b) legal opinions on the case. – o.m. Oct 09 '15 at 06:09
  • You use the word "refugee" without explaining what you mean by the word. There is a lot of different citizenship, visa and asylum status that could hide under this word. Please specify what exactly you mean. – yo' Oct 09 '15 at 07:57
  • @yo', I'm talking about people who arrived in Germany and need food, shelter, medical care. They get that even *before* they file asylum applications, and long before their status or citizenship is determined. Standards are slipping as the numbers grow, but it seems most are still getting a place to sleep under a roof or a decent-quality tent. http://polpix.sueddeutsche.com/bild/1.2025630.1434372666/900x600/muenchen.jpg – o.m. Oct 09 '15 at 15:54
  • "citizenship of a tenant shouldn't matter here" - it's actually the most crucial part of the whole question – JonathanReez Mar 29 '18 at 22:31
  • @JonathanReez, if a government agency puts buildings which are (temporarily) surplus to requirements to the regular housing market, it acts as a commercial entity. Renting those apartments is not a form of welfare entitlement, it is a normal contract. The usual rules should apply to that contract, which do not discriminate between citizens and non-citizen legal residents. And which allow a property owner to terminate leases if the property holder needs the the property for himself. It would be completely different if citizens had been thrown out of a homeless shelter, *but it was no shelter*. – o.m. Mar 30 '18 at 06:10
  • Yeah except the issue here is that the government favors refugees instead of putting its own citizens first. That's what makes people angry about the evictions. – JonathanReez Mar 30 '18 at 06:21
  • @JonathanReez, not quite. If that had made the the tenants homeless, they'd have a right to get housing from the government. A common way in small villages without homeless shelters is to for the municipal government to rent *their* home and assign them there. Nothing in the reports that the tenants were made homeless by the whole affair. *If I were to rent a house from an elderly lady now in a retirement home, I'd know that a couple of years the heirs of that old lady might come and evict me because the need the house themselves.* Same principle when people rent from the local government. – o.m. Mar 30 '18 at 14:57
  • Yes but the question here is whether or not a *German cltizen* was evicted to make room for someone who entered the country without a visa. The fact that those people weren't made homeless makes the affair look better, but the *citizen* part is extremely crucial in people's eyes. – JonathanReez Mar 30 '18 at 17:02
  • @JonathanReez, the German state has an obligation to provide basic shelter, food, and medical care to *all human beings within their borders.* It does not have an obligation to rent nice flats to some of the *citizens*. The citizens in question were living in in the upper story over a municipal kindergarten, they had to know that their contract would be terminated (with all due notice periods) whenever the municipal facilities had to expand again. – o.m. Mar 31 '18 at 05:56
  • Yes I agree that your explanation of the story clears up the behavior of the municipality officials. However it doesn't change the fact that the entire premise of this story hinges on whether or not a *citizen* was evicted. That's the "juicy" part of the initial claim. Nobody would care if the municipality evicted a random tourist. – JonathanReez Mar 31 '18 at 06:12
  • @JonathanReez, it is very common with "juicy" claims here on sceptics that they are true in a narrow sense and much less exciting once one regards all pertinent facts. The German *Eigenbedarfskündigung* always seems unfair to the tenants and fair to the property owners. – o.m. Apr 01 '18 at 07:32
2

I just read a report on this at welt.de (a respected German newspaper) so it appears to contain some truth. (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article147154375/Wenn-Gemeinden-Fluechtlinge-gutgeschrieben-werden.html)

The woman has lived in the apartment for 23 years and has been offered alternative but smaller accommodation.

The apartment is rented directly from the town and is described as social accommodation. A speaker for the town explained that the apartment was allocated to her because she was a single mum with 2 children. The children have now left home.

Those are the facts as reported but it is obviously a difficult situation for the woman. There is a lot of rented accommodation in Germany and there have been tax incentives for house builders to build big and add extra space which can be rented out. There is a law for 'Eigenbedarf' which allows the landlord to cancel a rental if he or a family member wants to use the apartment. This has often led to unhappy situations similar to this one. This case is just made even more difficult due to the refugee tensions at present and the media attention.

paul
  • 145
  • 4
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/30102/discussion-on-answer-by-paul-have-german-citizens-been-evicted-to-make-room-for). – Oddthinking Oct 10 '15 at 07:32