RENODIARYRENOVATION MANAGER
DEEN Start for free
DE
Renovation & Energy Maintenance

Structural Changes in a German WEG: Consent and Costs

Last reviewed: 8 September 2026 · Reading time approx. 7 minutes

A lift is up for a vote at the owners' meeting; a neighbour wants a wallbox in the underground car park. For the owner of a let apartment in a German condominium association (Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft, WEG) that raises three questions at once: what majority does it take? Do I have to pay even if I vote against it? And what do I do with my share in the tax return? The answers sit in two sections of the German Condominium Act (Wohnungseigentumsgesetz, WEG) that must not be confused.

The short answer

Consent and cost allocation are two separate questions. Anything that goes beyond the proper upkeep of the common property is a structural change (§ 20 (1) WEG) and is resolved by a majority of the votes cast (§ 25 (1) WEG). Who pays the bill, by contrast, follows § 21 WEG — and there it is not the bare yes that counts but how clearly the resolution passed. A resolution can therefore be perfectly valid without costing you a cent.

Upkeep or structural change — the switch everything hangs on

Proper upkeep (Erhaltung) of the common property is part of proper management under § 19 (2) no. 2 WEG. Its costs are borne by all owners in proportion to their co-ownership shares (Miteigentumsanteile) under § 16 (2) sentence 1 WEG — regardless of how anyone voted. That is the ordinary case: re-roofing, replacing the heating pump, patching the render.

§ 20 (1) WEG begins where that ends: "Measures which go beyond the proper upkeep of the common property (structural changes) may be resolved upon, or permitted to an individual apartment owner by resolution." Their costs no longer follow § 16 (2); via § 16 (3) WEG they follow § 21 WEG, with a completely different allocation. The line is not always sharp, and it is the most expensive point of the whole question: insulating that same roof while you are up there, or converting the loft, goes beyond upkeep — and both elements typically arrive on a single invoice.

Four routes to a structural change

1. The majority resolution (§ 20 (1) WEG)

For the resolution itself a simple majority suffices: "Resolutions are passed by a majority of the votes cast" (§ 25 (1) WEG). Abstentions and absentees do not count. The consent of every affected owner, once required for validity, is no longer a condition of validity — it has moved into the cost consequence of § 21 WEG.

2. The five privileged measures (§ 20 (2) WEG)

Every individual owner has a right to five kinds of measure. § 20 (2) sentence 1 WEG lists structural changes that serve:

  1. use by people with disabilities,
  2. the charging of electrically powered vehicles,
  3. burglary protection,
  4. connection to a very high capacity telecommunications network, and
  5. electricity generation by plug-in solar devices (Steckersolargeräte).

Here the association does not decide the whether, only the how: "Implementation shall be resolved upon within the framework of proper management" (§ 20 (2) sentence 2 WEG). An application for a wallbox therefore cannot simply be refused; the meeting may regulate the execution, the cable routing and the contractor.

A note on timing: the WEG was last amended by Article 1 of the Act of 10 October 2024. The two leading decisions discussed below date from 9 February 2024 and their headnotes expressly refer only to numbers 1 to 4. Whether the Federal Court of Justice extends its rule-and-exception approach to the plug-in solar devices in number 5 has not yet been decided.

3. Permission with the consent of those affected (§ 20 (3) WEG)

Outside the five privileges an owner may still demand permission — but only if all owners agree "whose rights are impaired by the structural change beyond the degree unavoidable in an orderly coexistence". Anyone who barely notices the measure need not be asked.

4. The absolute limit (§ 20 (4) WEG)

Two things are unavailable at any majority: structural changes that "fundamentally restructure the residential complex", and those that "unfairly disadvantage an apartment owner relative to others without their consent". They may be neither resolved upon nor permitted, and cannot be demanded — the only substantive lever an outvoted owner has left to challenge a resolution.

Who pays — cost allocation under § 21 WEG

Now the part meetings usually underestimate. § 21 WEG knows four cases with completely different bills. The yardstick is always the co-ownership share entered in the land register (§ 16 (1) sentence 2 WEG).

CaseProvisionWho bears the costWho gets the benefit
Permitted to one owner — or demanded by them under § 20 (2) § 21 (1) that owner alone that owner only
Resolved by more than two thirds of the votes cast and half of all co-ownership shares § 21 (2) no. 1 all owners by co-ownership share — unless the cost is disproportionate all, under § 16 (1)
Costs amortise within a reasonable period § 21 (2) no. 2 all owners by co-ownership share all, under § 16 (1)
All other structural changes § 21 (3) only the owners who voted in favour only those owners

Under § 21 (5) sentence 1 WEG the association may resolve a different allocation — but sentence 2 draws a hard line: no cost may be imposed on an owner who bears none under subsections 1 to 3. Conversely, nobody who does not pay is locked out: § 21 (4) WEG entitles them to demand use "at reasonable discretion against appropriate compensation".

The most common misconception: that the association bears the cost of a privileged measure because it cannot prevent it anyway. The statute says the opposite. § 21 (1) sentence 1 WEG places the cost of a structural change that was "carried out by the community of apartment owners at their request under § 20 (2)" on that one owner — and sentence 2 gives the benefit to them alone. The right secures the permission, not the funding.

Worked example: one building, three outcomes

A complex of twelve units; all twelve votes are represented. Your apartment carries a co-ownership share of 85/1,000.

€15,300 separates Case B from Case C on an identical measure and an identical quote. The difference comes purely from the voting result. Anyone sitting in that meeting should therefore know not only whether a resolution passed but on what vote and share figures — and make sure both go into the minutes.

And for tax?

For a let apartment your cost share is your own expense. Whether it is deductible at once or runs through depreciation turns on the same switch as above, measured by tax standards: production costs (Herstellungskosten) under § 255 (2) sentence 1 HGB are expenses for producing an asset, "its extension, or for a substantial improvement going beyond its original condition". A structural change goes beyond upkeep by definition and therefore lands in that category more often than a repair does — a lift the building did not previously have is an extension. It is not automatic, though: façade insulation that also takes care of render work due anyway looks different from an annex.

Anyone renovating within three years of purchase must also watch § 6 (1) no. 1a EStG: repair and modernisation measures count as production costs if, excluding VAT, they exceed 15% of the acquisition cost of the building. Sentence 2 expressly excludes extensions within the meaning of § 255 (2) sentence 1 HGB — they are production costs anyway and do not fill the basket. The details are in our article on the 15% threshold for acquisition-related production costs. On timing, the cash-flow principle applies — what matters is when your share actually leaves your account; see the article on the maintenance reserve. And if the measure is also a modernisation in tenancy-law terms, the next question is how much of it you may pass on through the modernisation rent increase.

What the courts have decided

The statute says that privileged measures exist and where their limit lies — but not how strictly that limit is to be applied. The Fifth Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has settled exactly that in three leading decisions.

BGH, judgment of 9 February 2024 – V ZR 244/22

The Senate deliberately sets a low bar for privileged measures: "A structural change serving one of the purposes listed in § 20 (2) sentence 1 nos. 1 to 4 WEG is as a rule appropriate." Disadvantages that typically arise from such a measure do not make it inappropriate. At the same time the Senate clarifies that, under the law in force since 1 December 2020, a structural change may be resolved upon even where it results in allocating exclusive use of common property to one owner. For the owner this means: whoever demands a wallbox, barrier-free access or burglary protection need only show that the measure serves that purpose — the association must plead something extraordinary if it wants to refuse.

BGH, judgment of 9 February 2024 – V ZR 33/23

On the same day the Senate decided what an outvoted owner can actually raise against such a resolution: it "is to be declared invalid on the action of another apartment owner only if the resolved measure, contrary to § 20 (4) first half-sentence WEG, fundamentally restructures the residential complex or unfairly disadvantages an apartment owner relative to others without their consent, or if the resolution suffers from some other (general) defect". Whether the individual conditions of the claim were met, and whether the measure was appropriate, is irrelevant in those proceedings. An action challenging only appropriateness therefore goes nowhere.

BGH, judgment of 11 October 2024 – V ZR 22/24

How narrowly the "fundamental restructuring" limit is drawn is shown by this case about a memorial stone in the complex's ornamental garden. A structural change "does not fundamentally restructure the residential complex if it is compatible with a specific stipulation contained in the community rules for the use and design of the common property (here: ornamental garden)". It is therefore worth reading your own community rules (Gemeinschaftsordnung) before challenging a resolution: what they expressly provide for can hardly restructure the complex fundamentally.

Frequently asked questions

Can the owners' meeting forbid my wallbox?

It does not decide the whether. § 20 (2) sentence 1 no. 2 WEG gives you a right, and under the BGH judgment V ZR 244/22 such a measure is as a rule appropriate. The association resolves on the implementation — cable route, load management, contractor — within the framework of proper management. In practice the application can only be refused via § 20 (4) WEG.

Do I have to help pay for a lift I never use?

That depends solely on the voting result. If the resolution passed with more than two thirds of the votes cast and half of all co-ownership shares, § 21 (2) no. 1 WEG puts it on everyone by share — actual use is irrelevant. If it fell short, only those in favour pay, under § 21 (3) WEG.

What if I built without a resolution?

§ 20 (1) WEG requires a resolution or a permission for every structural change to the common property. Without either, the measure is uncovered and removal may be demanded. Permission can also be resolved retrospectively — the route via the meeting is usually the cheaper one.

Does a special levy count towards my 15% threshold?

There is no blanket answer. § 6 (1) no. 1a EStG covers repair and modernisation measures on the building within three years of acquisition and expressly excludes extensions within the meaning of § 255 (2) sentence 1 HGB. It therefore depends on what the levy (Sonderumlage) actually funds. If your budget is close to the threshold, that is a question for your tax adviser.

Resolution, levy, invoice — in one place

RenoDiary keeps resolutions, contractor invoices and receipts together per property and shows what a measure does to your cash flow and your Anlage V.

Start for free

Sources

This article offers general orientation and does not replace individual tax or legal advice within the meaning of § 3 StBerG. The example figures are illustrations; what majority a particular resolution achieved, and how a cost share is treated for tax, depends on the individual case.