Search
Contact
16.04.2021 | KPMG Law Insights

The Berlin rent cap is unconstitutional – What does that mean for landlords and tenants?

The Berlin rent cap is unconstitutional – What does that mean for landlords and tenants?

The rent cap in force in Berlin since February 23, 2020 was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court (decision of March 25, 2021, 2 BvF 1/20, 2 BvL 4/20, 2 BVL 5/20). The State of Berlin has exceeded its legislative competence, so that the Act on the Reorganization of Statutory Provisions on Rent Restrictions (Rent Act, GVBl. 2020, p. 50) is incompatible with the Basic Law and is null and void. Now, many renters are threatened with additional payments – and more than ever, suitable means are needed to promote housing construction in Berlin on a sustainable basis.

Decision of the BVerfG

As we discussed shortly after the law came into force in our client information published in February 2020,[1] the Rent Act is in conflict with Art. 74 para. 1 No. 1 in connection with Art. 72 para. 1 of the Basic Law is incompatible and null and void. In response to an application for a review of standards, the BVerfG ruled that the State of Berlin lacked the legislative competence for this law and that the Federal Government had made conclusive use of its exclusive competence for civil law with the provisions on rent levels in Sections 549 et seq. BGB (German Civil Code), the federal government has made conclusive use of its exclusive competence for civil law. At the latest with the Rent Law Amendment Act of April 21, 2015, which regulated the limitation of reletting rents (the so-called Mietpreisbremse), the federal government has conclusively regulated the assessment of the maximum permissible rent for price-independent housing under federal law, as the court clarified. The Rent Act essentially regulates the same subject matter as the federal rent brake, so that according to the decision of the BVerfG there is no room for a more far-reaching or deviating state law regulation, as represented by the Rent Act.

Follow

As a result of the nullity of the entire Rent Act, the regulations limiting rent increases pursuant to Sections 3 et seq. of the Rent Act, which affected approximately 1.5 million of all rental apartments in Berlin, did not apply from the beginning. In particular, this means that the rent freeze regulated in the Rent Act, which provided for an exclusion of rent increases for five years, no longer applies. Likewise, the ban on demanding rents that are more than 20% above set rent ceilings has been lifted. For more details on the formerly applicable content of the Rent Act, we gladly refer to our article published in February 2020.

The Berlin Senate’s concept of using a state law to limit rent levels for privately financed, non-price-controlled housing has not worked. The goals of the Berlin Senate to relieve needy tenants, to counteract excessive rents and at the same time to sustainably calm the tight housing market could not be achieved in this way – and would probably not be achieved if a rent cap based on the Berlin model were to be cast into a federal law in the future on the basis of a parliamentary initiative, because there are further considerable fundamental rights concerns.

The BVerfG’s decision has now conclusively clarified the unconstitutionality of Berlin’s rent cap, but the consequences of the decision will not reach many landlords and tenants until the coming weeks. Thus, in many cases, tenants in Berlin are likely to face demands for back payments if and to the extent that the contractually agreed rent exceeded the rent permitted under the Rent Act and actually paid. Shortly after the decision was announced, a very differentiated picture is already emerging of how landlords will react: Although one of the largest housing companies on the Berlin market has already announced that it will forego back rent payments, not all landlords will be able to handle this in the same way, especially if the rent increases previously permitted by law were included in building financing. Some housing companies have already announced that they will not waive their right to demand back payments.

 

Outlook

The lack of sufficient affordable housing in Berlin, but also in many other German cities and metropolitan areas, remains a challenge for society and politics. The BVerfG’s ruling clarifies that regulations on the rent level for tenancies in privately financed housing construction, as part of social tenancy law, are conclusively reserved for the federal legislature, at least with regard to setting the maximum permissible rent. Consequently, further tightening or changes to the rent level could only be regulated at the federal level. In this respect, it is foreseeable that the issue of affordable rents will find its way into the many election campaigns in this particular year.

However, federal regulations on rent levels can only be one element of a more sustainable housing and construction policy, as is being called for everywhere. More than just ever-advancing regulation of market rents is needed to ease housing market tension. Limiting or capping freely agreed rents alone will not create new housing. New housing can be created primarily through new construction and modernization. According to our impression, investors for this are available in Germany as well as from abroad. Thus, at the state level, it seems sensible to take advantage of opportunities to focus on those instruments that are actually available to state legislatures – these may be familiar scenarios such as social housing, publicly subsidized housing, or price-conscious new construction by municipal housing corporations and cooperatives. Integrated concepts for building land development and holistic urban development could also be further advanced. However, it is also important that building administrations in cities and municipalities are not further thinned out in terms of personnel, so that building plans and building permits can be processed much faster than before. If urban building land is only allocated according to the highest bid and building requirements are only set according to the technical optimum and not with a sense of proportion, this will not reduce building costs and consequently rents either. The focus should be on a joint effort by policymakers, administrators, interest groups, housing companies, investors and tenant representatives to develop and advance holistic approaches to sustainably easing the housing markets. We will continue to closely monitor and report for you on the direction in which the development of the urban housing markets is moving and the paths that are being taken here.

[1] https://kpmg-law.de/mandanten-information/berliner-mietendeckel-landesgesetz-zur-mietenbegrenzung/

Explore #more

02.12.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive: what the expert commission recommends

The EU Pay Transparency Directive has been in force since June 2023 and must now be transposed into German law. In the coalition agreement,…

28.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest article Expert forum on employment law: Between theory and practice: The EU Blue Card and the right to short-term mobility within the EU

Nowadays, not only employees but also employers want to create more attractive working conditions. For some time now, so-called workstations / work-from-anywhere programs or other…

26.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

EU deforestation regulation forces companies to act

Anyone who trades in or uses the raw materials soy, oil palm, cattle, coffee, cocoa, rubber and wood and certain products made from them should…

25.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Special infrastructure assets: how the administration manages to implement projects quickly

The special infrastructure fund creates the opportunity to catch up on years of investment backlog. There is a need for urgency. Defence capability, economic growth…

21.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Interview in Real Estate I Haufe: Substitute building materials: “Secondary is not second class”

The Substitute Building Materials Ordinance is intended to harmonize the circular economy in construction, but legal uncertainty and bureaucracy are holding it back. How can…

21.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Residential construction turbo: more living space on existing properties

Since October 30, 2025, new regulations on the creation of living space have been in force in the German Building Code (BauGB). At the heart…

19.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

New Packaging Implementation Act tightens obligations for companies

With a new Packaging Implementation Act (VerpackDG), German law is to be adapted to the EU Packaging Regulation. The Federal Ministry for the Environment…

18.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in the FAZ on the subject of deepfakes

Fraudsters can easily falsify invoices or even act as company bosses. Companies can defend themselves against this, but there are no miracle weapons against AI…

17.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Video surveillance in rental properties: What should landlords be aware of?

Video surveillance of rented properties is only possible under strict legal conditions. More and more owners want to keep an eye on and secure their…

13.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Implementing AI in the legal department – these are the success factors

Artificial intelligence (AI) only benefits the legal department if it is implemented correctly. The technology promises to automate time-consuming routine work and fundamentally improve the…

Contact

Anna-Elisabeth Gronert

Manager

Heidestraße 58
10557 Berlin

Tel.: +49 30 530199125
agronert@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll