Reader question: What examination is required for an unauthorised exclusion from the flat when the landlord at the same time claims the tenancy has ended?
You return to your German rented flat and your key no longer works. The landlord states the lock has been changed because, in their view, the contract has ended. Your belongings are still inside; you did not consent to a handover. This is a concrete possession issue that must be examined separately and immediately from the dispute over the termination.
Document the observed exclusion
Record the time, the door affected and the actual loss of access. Secure the complete message about the lock change as well as any documents relating to your previous use of the flat. Name who, according to their own statement, arranged the replacement. A suspected person responsible is not described as reliably observed.
Also state any known special circumstances: Was there a bailiff appointment, a declared handover or another access solution? This article deals with an alleged unauthorised exclusion. It does not replace an examination of lawful enforcement or an actually agreed change of possession.
What must be examined as prohibited self-help
§ 858 BGB describes deprivation or disturbance of possession without the will of the possessor as unlawful, insofar as the law does not permit the measure. [BGB858] The assertion of being the owner or having a claim to return is therefore not in itself the complete examination of the unilateral measure.
For deprivation of possession § 861 opens up, under its conditions, a claim to restoration. For a disturbance § 862 names removal and, in the case of the threat of repetition, an injunction. Both also contain statutory exclusions. [BGB861][BGB862] Therefore have the actual state of possession and the specific action classified. Not every restriction is automatically the same type of claim.
Do not turn the tenancy dispute into a substitute for possession protection
§ 863 limits how an asserted right to possession or to the disturbing action can be pleaded against these possession claims. [BGB863] The lawfulness of the termination therefore remains a separate question. A possession protection procedure does not alone and finally decide how long a tenancy continues.
Provide legal assistance for both matters separately: the exclusion together with evidence and the previous contractual or termination dispute. An extensive explanation about the rent amount must not obscure the acute access question. Conversely, a restored access possibility does not automatically resolve an eviction claim still pending.
Hypothetical case with two necessary clarifications
One party to a tenancy disputes a termination. During a short absence the landlord has the lock changed and demands an appointment to collect the belongings. The tenant had neither returned the flat nor consented to an eviction.
They secure the message and previous proof of possession and immediately have the appropriate claim and a possible urgent court procedure examined. They arrange the route to a rapid restoration through professional assistance. The article does not provide instructions on forcible door opening or unilateral counter-repossession. In parallel the termination is further processed.
Do not rely on a purportedly generous time limit
§ 864 contains a one-year limit for the claims under §§ 861 and 862 if no prior judicial assertion has taken place, as well as another extinction rule. [BGB864] This is not a recommendation to wait for months if you are locked out. For appropriate preliminary legal protection the specific situation and the timeline must be examined immediately.
Keep the documents even after access has been restored. Actual additional costs and any damage are recorded as a separate matter and legally examined. Neither a private cost list nor the possession protection question alone already confirms any additional claim for damages.