Reader question: Which changed or absent circumstances can justify a further continuation after a hardship case?
After a hardship objection your tenancy in Germany was initially allowed to continue. Now the agreed or court-determined end is approaching, while the transition planning at the time did not work out. For this second situation §574c BGB contains its own rules. The previous success does not automatically extend the period of residence indefinitely. [BGB574c]
Read the existing outcome in full
Have the agreement or the judgment with all material conditions ready. Was the tenancy continued for a fixed period or converted by judgment to an indefinite period? Which point in time and which circumstances at the time were decisive for the duration?
§574a governs the first continuation and depending on the situation allows a fixed or indefinite duration as well as appropriately altered conditions. A later departure that was merely tolerated privately is not necessarily the same as the continuation referred to in §574c on the basis of §§ 574 to 574b. Have the basis of your previous period of residence classified first. [BGB574a][BGB574c]
For a fixed end, look at the difference
Paragraph 1 permits a further continuation only if a material change of circumstances justifies it or if certain expected circumstances failed to occur: namely those whose anticipated occurrence determined the duration of the previous continuation. [BGB574c]
Create two short columns for this. On the left set out which development was assumed when the previous decision was made. On the right set out the situation evidenced today. Do not merely repeat the entire burden from back then. The new assessment needs the connection between the earlier decision and the current need for continuation.
Demonstrate an absent event concretely
In the hypothetical case a fixed-term continuation had been aligned with the expected availability of a particular housing option. That option is now not available at the time then assumed, according to a new written statement. The tenant party keeps the original planning, the decision and the new communication together.
That does not yet guarantee further continuation. But it makes visible which expected circumstance has in fact failed to occur and why that might have been significant for the earlier duration. A merely generally difficult situation without reference to the previous arrangement would be less persuasive.
Different assessment for an indefinite judicial continuation
If the continuation was determined by judgment for an indefinite period and the landlord issues another termination, paragraph 2 governs the possible renewed objection and the claim to continuation. If the decisive circumstances have changed, the provision refers to §574; insignificant changes are disregarded. [BGB574c]
Do not therefore infer a permanent prohibition on termination from the old judgment, nor treat every small change as a complete loss of the previous protection. The facts of the new termination and the significance of the changes must be examined. §574 itself requires a weighing-up and contains an exclusion where there is a ground justifying summary (frictionless) termination. [BGB574]
Go to advice early with the complete earlier outcome, the current evidence and new correspondence. A further continuation of the tenancy agreement and a court-ordered eviction period are different processes. The article intentionally does not name a newly calculated end date; the forthcoming declaration and the concrete procedure must fit the existing case in good time.