Air Con­di­tio­ning in Con­do­mi­ni­ums: BGH Cla­ri­fies Owners’ Rights

In its recent­ly published decis­i­on V ZR 162/25, the Ger­man Fede­ral Court of Jus­ti­ce (Bun­des­ge­richts­hof – BGH) cla­ri­fied the con­di­ti­ons under which an apart­ment owner may obtain appr­oval to install an air-con­di­tio­ning sys­tem with an exter­nal unit on their bal­c­o­ny. The decis­i­on con­cerns, in par­ti­cu­lar, mul­ti-unit resi­den­ti­al buil­dings and estab­lishes that, in prin­ci­ple, an indi­vi­du­al owner may assert a right to install such a sys­tem against the con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­on, pro­vi­ded that the instal­la­ti­on does not exces­si­ve­ly inter­fe­re with the rights of the other owners.

The prin­ci­ple estab­lished by the BGH

Accor­ding to the BGH, an apart­ment owner may request the instal­la­ti­on of an air­con­di­tio­ning sys­tem with an exter­nal unit on their bal­c­o­ny. Whe­re the rele­vant requi­re­ments are met, the con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­on can­not oppo­se the instal­la­ti­on wit­hout signi­fi­cant reasons. The rights and inte­rests of the other owners must nevert­hel­ess be ade­qua­te­ly pro­tec­ted. The instal­la­ti­on must not result in an exces­si­ve inter­fe­rence with their rights or inte­rests. A par­ti­cu­lar­ly rele­vant aspect of the decis­i­on con­cerns noi­se emis­si­ons. The BGH cla­ri­fied that the mere fact that stan­dard com­mer­ci­al­ly available air-con­di­tio­ning units pro­du­ce noi­se is not, in its­elf, suf­fi­ci­ent to jus­ti­fy an objec­tion to the instal­la­ti­on.

Pri­or appr­oval is still requi­red

The decis­i­on does not, howe­ver, estab­lish a gene­ral right to install air-con­di­tio­ning sys­tems wit­hout pri­or appr­oval. The pro­po­sed instal­la­ti­on must still be sub­mit­ted to the con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­on for appr­oval. The owner con­cer­ned must the­r­e­fo­re sub­mit a request tog­e­ther with the neces­sa­ry docu­men­ta­ti­on and, in par­ti­cu­lar, a quo­ta­ti­on or tech­ni­cal pro­po­sal pre­pared by a qua­li­fied spe­cia­list com­pa­ny. The reco­gni­ti­on of a right to install the sys­tem does not mean that the owner may pro­ceed inde­pendent­ly. Even fol­lo­wing the BGH decis­i­on, the appli­ca­ble appr­oval pro­ce­du­re for mea­su­res affec­ting com­mon pro­per­ty must be fol­lo­wed.

What does this mean for con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­ons?

The decis­i­on makes it more dif­fi­cult for a con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­on to pre­vent the instal­la­ti­on of an air-con­di­tio­ning sys­tem in the absence of signi­fi­cant reasons. It may the­r­e­fo­re be advi­sa­ble to estab­lish gene­ral cri­te­ria for appro­ving such instal­la­ti­ons in advan­ce, inclu­ding spe­ci­fic: • struc­tu­ral requi­re­ments, such as the posi­ti­on of the exter­nal unit, for exam­p­le below the bal­c­o­ny rai­ling; • tech­ni­cal requi­re­ments, inclu­ding the use of stan­dard com­mer­ci­al­ly available equip­ment; • orga­niza­tio­nal requi­re­ments, con­cer­ning the cos­ts and main­ten­an­ce obli­ga­ti­ons of the owner car­ry­ing out the instal­la­ti­on. Defi­ning the­se requi­re­ments in advan­ce can allow con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­ons to deal with future instal­la­ti­on requests con­sis­t­ent­ly and effi­ci­ent­ly.

Unaut­ho­ri­zed instal­la­ti­ons

The decis­i­on does not aut­ho­ri­ze instal­la­ti­ons car­ri­ed out wit­hout the requi­red appr­oval. An air-con­di­tio­ning sys­tem instal­led wit­hout the neces­sa­ry aut­ho­riza­ti­on the­r­e­fo­re remains unaut­ho­ri­zed. Howe­ver, the reco­gni­ti­on of a right to install the sys­tem may affect the pos­si­bi­li­ty of sub­se­quent­ly requi­ring its rem­oval, making a cla­im for res­to­ra­ti­on more dif­fi­cult for the con­do­mi­ni­um owners’ asso­cia­ti­on. The decis­i­on V ZR 162/25 the­r­e­fo­re pro­vi­des important cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on on the balan­ce bet­ween an indi­vi­du­al owner’s right to install an air-con­di­tio­ning sys­tem and the pro­tec­tion of the rights and inte­rests of the other con­do­mi­ni­um owners.