Can a flat owners’ association, by a majority vote, have a large-scale work of art installed on the façade of a high-rise building? The Federal Court of Justice has clearly answered this question in the affirmative and, in doing so, has also provided important guidance on when such a resolution is deemed to be sufficiently specific.
What was it about?
A street art association from Wuppertal offered a flat owners’ association the opportunity to have the façade of a high-rise building designed by an artist free of charge as part of a municipally funded art project. The mural was to remain on the façade for as long as possible, but for at least ten years. After five years, however, the association was to be free to decide whether the façade should be repainted or altered in some other way.
A majority of the owners voted in favour of authorising the management to conclude the relevant contract. One owner refused to accept this decision. He argued that the painting would constitute a fundamental alteration to the complex. Furthermore, he claimed it was not yet known what the finished artwork would actually look like. The Magistrates’ Court and the Regional Court dismissed his claim. The Federal Court of Justice also ruled against him.
The ruling of the Federal Court of Justice
The Federal Court of Justice (judgement of 25 September 2026, Case No. V ZR 165/25) upheld the decisions of the lower courts on all key points.
Street art is classified as a structural alteration
A large-scale artistic façade design falls within the definition of a structural alteration within the meaning of Section 20(1) of the Condominium Act (WEG). The Act was amended in 2020 and has since expressly permitted owners’ associations to approve such measures by a simple majority, even if they significantly alter the appearance of the development.
No ready-made design required
A common objection raised regarding art projects is: ‘What exactly is being created here?’ The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) makes it clear that a resolution is sufficiently specific if it specifies the area concerned, the arrangements for costs and the planned duration of the artwork’s display. The exact motif does not need to be determined in advance. Artistic creation thrives on freedom and, by its very nature, cannot be planned down to the last detail. It is sufficient if general parameters such as colour scheme and style are described.
No fundamental overhaul
Section 20(4) of the WEG sets a limit: resolutions must not result in a fundamental redesign of the residential complex. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) emphasises, however, that a mere change to the overall visual impression does not, as a rule, exceed this limit. The benchmark is the entire complex, not an individual building. In this specific case, a further factor in its favour was that the project formed part of a larger urban art project and that the owners’ association was neither required to bear any costs nor to enter into a long-term commitment.
No discrimination against individual owners
The fact that individual owners do not personally like the artwork does not constitute unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the law. Legal protection against discrimination requires that certain owners be placed under a greater burden than others, not merely that tastes differ.
What does this mean for flat owners?
The ruling demonstrates the extent of the scope for action available to owners’ associations following the 2020 WEG reform. Changes to a building’s appearance, even very striking ones, can be decided by a majority vote, provided that the key framework conditions are set out in the resolution. Any individual owner wishing to challenge such resolutions must have specific legal grounds for doing so, beyond mere personal preferences of taste. In individual cases, it is advisable to seek legal advice before a resolution is passed or challenged.
Source: Haufe: Law
This post and the accompanying image were created with the help of AI and have been editorially reviewed.
