Can a flat owners’ association approve a large-scale work of art on the building’s façade by a majority vote? The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now unequivocally answered this question in the affirmative. In its judgement of 25 September 2026 (Case No. V ZR 165/25), the court ruled that such a resolution is lawful provided that certain conditions are set out in the resolution.
What was the case about?
A street art association from Wuppertal wanted to have the façade of a high-rise block, which formed part of a block of flats, decorated free of charge by an artist. The project was part of an art initiative supported by the city. The mural was to remain in place for as long as possible, but for at least ten years. After five years, however, the residents’ association was to be free to decide whether, for example, the façade should be repainted or insulated.
The owners’ association voted by a majority to authorise the management to enter into a contract to that effect. One owner challenged this decision by bringing an action to set it aside. He argued that the painting constituted a fundamental alteration to the complex and also complained that the exact appearance of the artwork had not yet been known at the time the resolution was passed. The Local Court and the Regional Court dismissed the action, and the Federal Court of Justice upheld these decisions.
Structural alterations under Section 20 of the WEG
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) classified the artistic façade design as a structural alteration within the meaning of Section 20(1) of the Condominium Act (WEG). In principle, the owners’ association may decide on such measures by a simple majority. The fact that the artwork would significantly alter the visual appearance of the complex over several years does not preclude this.
The decision was sufficiently specific
A key point of contention was whether a resolution could be valid at all if the exact subject matter of the artwork had not yet been determined. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that it could. For the required degree of specificity, it is sufficient for the resolution to specify the area concerned, who is to bear the costs, and the duration for which the artwork is to remain in place. A precise description of the finished appearance is not required, as artistic creation cannot be fully determined in advance in the same way as a technical construction plan.
No fundamental redesign of the plant
Under Section 20(4) of the WEG, structural alterations are not permitted if they fundamentally alter the appearance of the residential complex. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) did not consider this threshold to have been exceeded in this case. A mere visual change to the overall appearance is not sufficient for this. With the 2020 reform of the WEG, the legislature had expressly pursued the aim of making it easier to authorise structural measures by majority resolution, despite any visual impact.
The assessment depends on the development as a whole, not on the individual building. Furthermore, the court considered it relevant that the project was part of an urban art initiative, that the costs were borne entirely by the association, and that the owners’ association’s involvement was limited in time.
What does this mean for flat owners?
The ruling strengthens the scope for action available to owners’ associations when it comes to creative and cultural projects. Minority owners cannot block such a measure solely on the grounds that they personally do not like the artwork. However, it remains important that the resolution itself is clearly worded and sets out key conditions. Any owner in a similar situation who has questions about the legality of a resolution should seek legal advice.
Source: Haufe: Property
This post and the accompanying image were created with the help of AI and have been editorially reviewed.
