What Can a German Condominium Owners' Meeting Decide?

Not every majority resolution passed by the owners' meeting is valid. Where the limits lie, when you can object, and which deadline really matters — all explained here.

You have received an invitation to the owners’ meeting, or the minutes are already in front of you. One of the resolutions has left you frustrated. Perhaps the meeting waved through a refurbishment whose costs you consider unreasonable. Perhaps it turned down your request for a charging point for your electric car. In almost every case, the central question is the same: was the meeting even entitled to decide the matter in that way?

In brief

The owners’ meeting may, in principle, resolve on anything that forms part of the “proper administration” of the common property — from the house rules and maintenance to the appointment of the managing agent. For structural alterations that go beyond ordinary maintenance, a distinct set of rules has applied since the reform of the German Condominium Act (WEG). Those rules provide for a simple majority, but they also set substantive limits. An unlawful resolution is not automatically void — it remains valid unless you challenge it in court within one month.

How I can help you

• I assess whether the meeting exceeded its resolution-making powers with a particular decision
• I bring, and set out the grounds for, an action to set aside the resolution against your condominium owners’ association within the deadline
• I enforce your right to privileged structural alterations — accessibility, an EV charging point, burglary protection, fibre-optic connection, plug-in solar
• I advise you ahead of the meeting so that your motions are put forward and recorded on a sound legal footing
• I represent you in actions to substitute a resolution where a necessary decision fails to materialise

What the meeting is actually responsible for

Under section 19(1) WEG, the condominium owners resolve on the “proper administration and use” of the common property. This applies only where an agreement — for instance in the declaration of division — does not provide otherwise. Section 19(2) WEG lists six core areas that are mandatorily part of proper administration: the house rules, the maintenance of the common property, adequate insurance, the formation of a maintenance reserve, the fixing of advance payments and — as a rule — the appointment of a certified managing agent. The meeting may decide all of these by simple majority, without any special rule coming into play.

An important point: an agreement between the owners — usually the declaration of division — takes precedence over a mere resolution-making power. Whatever the declaration of division governs cannot be overridden by the meeting through a majority resolution. That generally requires an amendment to the agreement, and every owner must take part in it, not just the majority at the meeting.

Structural alterations: the real battleground

Measures that go beyond ordinary maintenance — such as adding a balcony, insulating a façade in a way that changes its appearance, or installing new charging infrastructure — fall under section 20 WEG. Since the reform, a distinct system applies here:

• The basic rule (section 20(1) WEG): structural alterations require a resolution. The meeting passes it by a simple majority of the votes cast (section 25 WEG) — the consent of all owners is, as a rule, not needed.
• Privileged measures (section 20(2) WEG): for certain purposes, every individual owner may demand a reasonable structural alteration — such as accessibility, charging facilities for electric vehicles, burglary protection, connection to a high-speed telecommunications network, or a plug-in solar device. The meeting must pass a resolution on this, but it cannot refuse the measure as such in principle — at most it may have a say in the “how” of carrying it out.
• The consent of affected owners (section 20(3) WEG): if the measure affects an owner beyond the level that is unavoidable in orderly communal living, that owner’s consent is additionally required.
• The absolute limit (section 20(4) WEG): measures that fundamentally reshape the residential complex, or that place an owner at an unfair disadvantage without that owner’s consent, are impermissible. The meeting must not pass such a resolution in the first place — if it does so nonetheless, the resolution can be set aside.

For you as an owner this means: a “no” from the meeting to your request for an EV charging station is not automatically the last word. With privileged measures you have a legal entitlement; if necessary, you can enforce it through the courts.

Formal validity: the invitation, the agenda, the majority

A resolution also stands or falls on whether the meeting observes the procedural rules. Under section 23 WEG, the subject of the resolution must already appear in the invitation to the meeting — that is, on the agenda. If the meeting votes on an item that was not announced, this is a classic ground for setting the resolution aside. The meeting may likewise resolve that owners take part by electronic means of communication. With a majority of at least three-quarters of the votes cast, it may even permit purely virtual meetings with no physical presence.

As to voting rights: each owner has, in principle, one vote (section 25 WEG). Where an apartment has several co-owners, they may exercise the voting right only jointly. The Act excludes an owner from voting where the matter concerns a legal transaction with that owner, the commencement of legal proceedings against them, or a sanction for a breach of duty that has already been finally established. If an excluded owner votes nonetheless, this can tip the majority and render the resolution open to challenge.

Challenging a resolution: the process and the crucial one-month deadline

If you consider a resolution unlawful, it does not thereby become automatically invalid. Under section 44 WEG, an owner may apply to the court to have a resolution declared invalid (an action to set aside). Where the defects are particularly serious, they may instead have its nullity established (an action for a declaration of nullity). Conversely, where a necessary resolution fails to materialise, an action to substitute a resolution may be an option.

The action is brought against the community of condominium owners, not against individual co-owners. The managing agent must inform the other owners of any action brought without delay. The court joins several sets of proceedings concerning the same resolution for a joint hearing. The judgment then takes effect for and against all condominium owners — regardless of whether they brought proceedings themselves.

The decisive point is the deadline in section 45 WEG: you must bring the action to set aside within one month of the resolution being passed. In addition, you must set out the grounds for the action within two months of the resolution being passed. These deadlines are tightly drawn and run from the day of the meeting, not from the day you receive the minutes. Only in narrow, statutorily regulated exceptional cases can the court remedy a missed deadline — in line with the reinstatement provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). You should not, however, rely on that.

A practical example

At its annual meeting, a condominium owners’ association resolves by majority to carry out an energy-efficiency façade refurbishment. The item was not on the original agenda but came to a vote spontaneously under “any other business”. One owner considers the allocation of costs unreasonable. He only learns of the minutes three weeks later. Because the agenda item was not properly announced, there is a ground for setting the resolution aside. The one-month deadline, however, has already been running since the day of the meeting. The owner must therefore act quickly to file his action in time.

Common mistakes

• Waiting too long: many owners first gather arguments or wait for the minutes before taking action. Meanwhile the one-month deadline slips away. After that, the resolution becomes finally valid, even if it was unlawful.
• Suing the managing agent instead of the association: the action to set aside must be directed against the condominium owners’ association — naming the wrong defendant costs valuable time while the deadline runs.
• Confusing being open to challenge with being void: not every defect makes a resolution void. Most defects merely leave it open to challenge — and you must assert that actively and within the deadline.
• Misreading privileged measures as merely optional: with accessibility, e-mobility, burglary protection, fibre-optic and plug-in solar, there is an entitlement in principle. If the meeting rejects such a measure out of hand, that is legally open to challenge.

Frequently asked questions

Can I still challenge a resolution after the one-month deadline has passed?

As a rule, no. You must bring the action to set aside within one month of the resolution being passed. After that, the resolution becomes finally valid, even if it was substantively flawed. Only where the defects are particularly serious and lead to nullity is an action for a declaration — which is not subject to a deadline — conceivable. That, however, applies only in exceptional cases.

Do I have to set out the full grounds for my action straight away?

No. You must bring the action itself within one month; you may submit the substantive grounds within two months of the resolution being passed. In practice, though, you should not put off the grounds until the very last day.

What happens if I wasn’t present at the meeting at all?

Even someone who did not attend can challenge resolutions. The deadline still runs from the day the resolution was passed, not from the day you become aware of it. If you are regularly unable to attend, you should arrange for the minutes to be sent to you promptly, or organise someone to represent you.

Can the meeting force my consent to a structural alteration even though it particularly affects me?

No. If the alteration affects an owner beyond the level that is unavoidable in orderly communal living, that owner’s consent is additionally required. Without that consent, the meeting must not resolve on or approve the measure to that extent.

Who bears the costs of a structural alteration that I have requested?

With privileged measures such as an EV charging point or plug-in solar, the owner who demanded the measure generally bears the costs. The precise allocation of costs may, however, depend on further circumstances in the individual case — for instance where several owners benefit from the measure.

Your next step

Whether a resolution of your owners’ meeting will stand depends on formal details and tight deadlines. With these deadlines, every day counts. If you consider a resolution unlawful, or if the meeting denies you an entitlement to a structural alteration, you should have it examined without delay. Act before the one-month deadline slips away. In an initial consultation I review the invitation, the agenda and the minutes. I then tell you whether, and how, a challenge can succeed — more about my work in real estate law.

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. It cannot replace advice tailored to your individual case.

This article provides general information and is no substitute for legal advice in an individual case. Last updated: 2026-09-10.

Request an initial consultationWhat will it cost me?08091 617 7777