Cosmetic Repairs (Schönheitsreparaturen): These Clauses Are Invalid

What are cosmetic repairs (Schönheitsreparaturen)?

Cosmetic repairs (Schönheitsreparaturen) means wallpapering, painting, or whitewashing walls and ceilings, painting floors, radiators, the insides of windows, and doors. So these are purely decorative works, not structural maintenance. In principle, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the rented flat — but they can transfer the cosmetic repairs to the tenant via the rental contract.

Rigid deadline rules are invalid

The most important BGH ruling for tenants: clauses that prescribe rigid deadlines for cosmetic repairs are invalid. The BGH has clarified this in several judgments (including BGH VIII ZR 360/03):

• Wordings such as “The kitchen must be renovated every 3 years, the bathroom and toilet every 5 years, and living rooms every 5 years” are invalid if they leave no leeway.
• Clauses with the addition “at least” or “at the latest” are also rigid deadlines and therefore invalid.
• By contrast, “soft” wordings such as “as a rule” or “generally”, which allow room for judgement, are permissible.

If the cosmetic repairs clause is invalid, the obligation falls back entirely on the landlord. The tenant does not have to renovate either during the tenancy or when moving out.

Final-renovation clauses are generally invalid

Clauses that require the tenant to renovate on moving out regardless of the condition of the flat are also invalid (BGH VIII ZR 308/02). The reason: they mean the tenant has to renovate even if they renovated the flat only recently or if there is no need to renovate at all.

Colour-choice clauses: What is allowed?

The landlord may require the flat to be returned in neutral, light colours on move-out — but only if the clause is worded correctly:

• Permissible: “On move-out, the walls must be returned in neutral colours” — worded as a standalone obligation.
• Impermissible: “During the tenancy, only light colours may be used” — because this unlawfully restricts the tenant's way of living (BGH VIII ZR 198/10).

Flat taken over unrenovated: Who has to renovate?

A common point of dispute: the tenant took over the flat unrenovated and is now expected to renovate on moving out. In 2015, the BGH ruled (VIII ZR 185/14): if the flat was handed over unrenovated at move-in, a cosmetic repairs clause is invalid — unless the tenant receives reasonable compensation (e.g. rent-free time or a sum of money).

This means: if you took over the flat with old wallpaper and yellowed walls, you do not have to renovate when you move out — provided no compensation was agreed.

Pro-rata settlement clauses are invalid

Some contracts contain clauses under which the tenant is supposed to bear a percentage share of the renovation costs on moving out if the deadlines have not yet expired. These so-called pro-rata settlement clauses (Quotenabgeltungsklauseln) are generally invalid under BGH case law (BGH VIII ZR 242/13). The tenant can be required neither to pay a percentage nor to renovate proportionally.

Check your rental contract

Many tenants renovate on moving out even though they are not obliged to. The clauses in older rental contracts are often invalid. Have your rental contract analysed by KlarMiet: our AI detects invalid cosmetic repairs clauses and gives you a clear assessment of whether and to what extent you have to renovate. This saves you, on average, 1,500 to 3,000 euros in unnecessary renovation costs.