Cosmetic Repairs Germany: Who Pays for Redecoration 2026
The tenant moves out, the flat is worn, the tenancy agreement contains a clause about cosmetic repairs (Schönheitsreparaturen) — and the invoice still lands with the owner. That is not an exception. Since a reversal by Germany's Federal Court of Justice it is the normal outcome for a large share of existing tenancies. This article sets out what cosmetic repairs legally cover, when the clause in the agreement fails, when the tenant must nevertheless pay half, what amount belongs in your annual budget, and why the very same invoice is treated completely differently for tax in the first three years after a purchase.
What cosmetic repairs cover — and what they do not
The term appears in nearly every German tenancy agreement, yet it does not appear in the Civil Code (BGB). It is defined at exactly one place in German law: § 28 para. 4 sentence 3 of the Second Calculation Ordinance (Zweite Berechnungsverordnung, II. BV). Cosmetic repairs, it says, „umfassen nur das Tapezieren, Anstreichen oder Kalken der Wände und Decken, das Streichen der Fußböden, Heizkörper einschließlich Heizrohre, der Innentüren sowie der Fenster und Außentüren von innen" — they cover only wallpapering, painting or whitewashing walls and ceilings, painting floors, radiators including heating pipes, internal doors, and windows and external doors from the inside.
The word „only" carries the weight. Anything touching the substance of the building is not a cosmetic repair but maintenance or repair proper — and that stays with the landlord in every case. Germany's Federal Fiscal Court also falls back on this same provision when it needs to draw the line.
| Cosmetic repair (transferable to the tenant) | Not a cosmetic repair (stays with the landlord) |
|---|---|
| Wallpapering, painting or whitewashing walls and ceilings | Sanding and sealing parquet, replacing floor coverings |
| Painting floors | Replacing windows, doors, sanitary, electrical or heating installations |
| Painting radiators including heating pipes | Painting windows and external doors from the outside |
| Painting internal doors | Removing damp, mould or structural damage |
| Painting windows and external doors from the inside | Work on common property, the façade or the roof |
Without a valid clause the landlord pays — always
The statutory default is unambiguous and runs against the owner. Under § 535 para. 1 sentence 2 BGB the landlord must hand the property over „in einem zum vertragsgemäßen Gebrauch geeigneten Zustand" and keep it in that condition during the tenancy. As a matter of statute, redecorating is therefore the landlord's job. § 538 BGB adds that the tenant is not answerable for „Veränderungen oder Verschlechterungen der Mietsache, die durch den vertragsgemäßen Gebrauch herbeigeführt werden" — ordinary wear and tear is covered by the rent.
That almost every standard-form agreement nonetheless shifts redecoration onto the tenant is a departure from that statutory rule, and therefore a standard business term within the meaning of § 307 BGB. Such terms are ineffective under § 307 para. 1 sentence 1 BGB if they „unangemessen benachteiligen" the other party contrary to good faith; under para. 2 no. 1 that is presumed where the term is irreconcilable with essential principles of the statutory rule it departs from.
This is where the 2015 decision that turned German letting practice around begins. If a flat is handed over unrenovated and the tenant receives no reasonable compensation for it, the transfer clause does not survive the fairness review. The reasoning is intuitive: otherwise the tenant would also have to remove his predecessors' wear and hand the flat back in a better state than he received it.
If the clause falls, it is not replaced by a milder one. Under § 306 para. 2 BGB the content of the contract is then governed „nach den gesetzlichen Vorschriften" — that is, by § 535 para. 1 sentence 2 BGB. German law does not cut an invalid standard term back to whatever would still have been permissible.
The rule of thumb after an unrenovated handover: split the cost in half
A void clause does not automatically mean the landlord owes a full redecoration. In 2020 the Federal Court of Justice followed the case through to its end: what is owed is the condition in which the flat was handed over — and that may well be the unrenovated one. Only once the decorative condition has materially deteriorated since the start of the tenancy does the tenant have a claim at all.
Because restoring a half-worn original state would be technically pointless, only a full redecoration is realistic in practice. That leaves the tenant better off than he was at the start of the contract — and so he has to contribute, as a rule by half.
| Situation | Who bears the cost? |
|---|---|
| Handed over decorated, valid clause in the agreement | Tenant, to the extent agreed |
| Handed over decorated, no clause or a void one | Landlord, in full (§ 535 para. 1 sentence 2 BGB) |
| Handed over undecorated, without reasonable compensation | Clause void; landlord redecorates, tenant contributes as a rule 50% |
| Handed over undecorated, but with reasonable compensation (e.g. a rent-free period) | Clause may be valid; then the tenant |
In figures: if the decorator's quote is €6,000, the tenant regularly bears €3,000 of it. If he demands that you carry out the work, you can raise his share by way of a right of retention; if he demands an advance on costs, his share is deducted from that advance. The half is a presumption, not a fixed quota — the particulars of a case can shift it.
What cosmetic repairs cost per year
There is an official benchmark for this that hardly anyone knows. For rent-controlled housing, § 28 para. 4 sentence 2 II. BV provides that where the landlord bears the cost of cosmetic repairs, „so dürfen sie höchstens mit 8,50 Euro je Quadratmeter Wohnfläche im Jahr angesetzt werden" — at most €8.50 per square metre of living space per year. The figure does not apply directly to unregulated lettings, but it is the only figure for this item anywhere in German legislation, and therefore a usable starting point for your own reserve.
| Living space | Notional amount per year | Accrued after a 7-year tenancy |
|---|---|---|
| 45 m² | €382.50 | €2,677.50 |
| 68 m² | €578.00 | €4,046.00 |
| 85 m² | €722.50 | €5,057.50 |
| 120 m² | €1,020.00 | €7,140.00 |
The arithmetic is deliberately plain: area × €8.50 × years. It shows that a full redecoration after a normal tenancy is not an exceptional event but an item the rent should already have earned over the years. An owner who does not set that money aside funds the move-out from working capital — precisely the effect a properly calculated maintenance reserve is meant to prevent.
For tax: immediately deductible — except in the first three years
Where the landlord pays for cosmetic repairs, that is expenditure „zur Erwerbung, Sicherung und Erhaltung der Einnahmen" and therefore a deductible expense under § 9 para. 1 sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act (EStG) — fully deductible in the year of payment. That is the normal case.
The normal case does not apply immediately after a purchase. Under § 6 para. 1 no. 1a sentence 1 EStG, expenditure on repair and modernisation measures carried out „innerhalb von drei Jahren nach der Anschaffung des Gebäudes" counts as production cost if it exceeds, net of VAT, 15% of the acquisition cost of the building. Nothing is then immediately deductible; everything moves into the depreciation (AfA) base and works through only over decades.
The decisive and frequently missed point: cosmetic repairs count towards that 15% threshold. The Federal Fiscal Court said so expressly in 2016 and abandoned its earlier, narrower line in doing so. The decorator's invoice after a purchase is therefore not a harmless item — it can, together with a bathroom and windows, be what breaks the threshold. How the threshold works in detail is covered in the article on the 15% threshold for acquisition-related production costs.
Two routes remain open. First, § 6 para. 1 no. 1a sentence 2 EStG expressly excludes „Aufwendungen für Erhaltungsarbeiten, die jährlich üblicherweise anfallen" — maintenance work that customarily arises every year. The Federal Fiscal Court counts routine boiler servicing among these; in the decided case €166.60 and €59.50 did in fact remain immediately deductible. Cosmetic repairs do not qualify, because they are not normally carried out annually. Second, larger maintenance expenditure on buildings used predominantly for residential purposes may under § 82b para. 1 EStDV be spread evenly „auf zwei bis fünf Jahre" — over two to five years — which helps when a single year's deduction would be wasted. The detail is in the article on spreading maintenance expenditure under § 82b EStDV.
What the courts have decided
On few topics does so little sit in the statute and so much in the case law. The transfer of redecoration, its limits and its tax treatment come down to three decisions of Germany's highest courts that every landlord should know.
BGH, judgment of 18 March 2015 – VIII ZR 185/14
Here the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) abandoned the line it had held until then: transferring ongoing cosmetic repairs by standard-form clause onto the tenant of a flat handed over unrenovated or in need of decoration does not survive the fairness review under § 307 BGB unless the landlord grants reasonable compensation. „Unrenovated" does not require a completely worn-out flat — traces of use from before the contract are enough if, on a realistic view, they carry weight; what matters is the overall impression. For owners this means the condition on the day of handover decides the validity of a clause that only becomes relevant years later.
BGH, judgment of 8 July 2020 – VIII ZR 163/18
Five years later the same senate settled the cost consequence. The void clause is replaced by the statutory duty of upkeep in § 535 para. 1 sentence 2 BGB; but what is owed is only the condition at handover, and a claim arises only once the initial decorative condition has materially deteriorated. Because in practice only a full redecoration then makes sense, the tenant must contribute to the necessary cost „in angemessenem – in der Regel hälftigem – Umfang", that is to a reasonable and as a rule half extent. The landlord can raise that share as a right of retention or deduct it from an advance on costs.
BFH, judgment of 14 June 2016 – IX R 22/15 (officially reported)
The Federal Fiscal Court (Bundesfinanzhof, BFH) held that expenditure within the meaning of § 6 para. 1 no. 1a sentence 1 EStG covers all building measures carried out as part of an acquisition-related repair and modernisation — „hierzu gehören auch Kosten für Schönheitsreparaturen", these include the cost of cosmetic repairs. The senate dropped its earlier requirement of a close link to a single unified refurbishment. The practical consequence: anyone redecorating within three years of a purchase must put the painting into the same 15% calculation as the bathroom, the windows and the heating — otherwise the expected immediate deduction turns into depreciation after the fact.
Frequently asked questions
Does a void redecoration clause at least apply „as far as permitted"?
No. Under § 306 para. 2 BGB the content of the contract is governed by the statutory rules once a standard term is void. German law knows no reduction of the clause to whatever would still have been valid — it falls away entirely.
What counts as „reasonable compensation" for an unrenovated handover?
An economic equivalent that puts the tenant in the position he would have been in had he received a decorated flat — a rent-free period, for instance, or a permanently reduced rent. Neither the statute nor the case law cited here names a floor or a fixed quota; the amount has to match the redecoration effort and should be documented in the agreement.
May I deduct cosmetic repairs from the deposit?
Only if the tenant owes them at all — that is, where the clause is valid and redecoration is actually due. If the clause is void there is no claim and therefore no ground for a deduction. Which deductions are permitted and how long you have to settle up is covered in the article on the German rental deposit: amount, investment and settlement.
Does sanding the parquet count as a cosmetic repair?
No. § 28 para. 4 sentence 3 II. BV lists „das Streichen der Fußböden", painting the floors. Sanding and sealing is something else and reaches the substance of the building. It therefore remains the landlord's responsibility.
Can I still deduct the decorator's invoice immediately in the year of purchase?
Only if all repair and modernisation expenditure over the first three years together stays below 15% of the building's acquisition cost. Otherwise the whole amount becomes production cost. Work out where you stand against the threshold before you place an order, not when you file the return.
Redecoration costs per property, not in a shoebox
RenoDiary collects contractor invoices, handover records and maintenance per property, shows where you stand against the 15% threshold and assigns every document to the right line of the German Anlage V.
Start for freeSources
- § 535 BGB (main obligations of the tenancy) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 538 BGB (wear and tear through contractual use) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 307 BGB (review of the content of standard terms) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 306 BGB (consequences of ineffectiveness) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 28 II. BV (maintenance costs, definition of cosmetic repairs, maximum amount) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 26 II. BV (three-yearly adjustment of the amounts) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 9 EStG (deductible expenses) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 6 EStG (acquisition-related production costs) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- § 82b EStDV (spreading larger maintenance expenditure) — Gesetze im Internet (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- BGH, judgment of 18 March 2015 – VIII ZR 185/14 (clause void after an unrenovated handover) — full text (PDF) at the Bundesgerichtshof (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- BGH, judgment of 8 July 2020 – VIII ZR 163/18 (tenant's half share of the cost) — full text (PDF) at the Bundesgerichtshof (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
- BFH, judgment of 14 June 2016 – IX R 22/15 (cosmetic repairs within the 15% threshold, officially reported) — full text at the Bundesfinanzhof (retrieved on 26 August 2026)
This article offers general orientation and does not replace individual tax or legal advice within the meaning of § 3 StBerG. Whether a particular clause is valid and how much a tenant must contribute depends on the individual case — the amounts in the tables are illustrative calculations, not assured values.