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.


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.



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.


Explore #more

13.06.2024 | Press releases

Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers honor KPMG Law Experts

Best Lawyers has once again identified the best commercial lawyers in Germany for 2024 exclusively for Handelsblatt. A total of 28 lawyers were honored by…

27.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Agreement on ecodesign regulation: products to become more sustainable

After lengthy negotiations, the Council and Parliament of the European Union reached a provisional agreement on the Ecodesign Regulation on the night of December 5,…

22.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

The AI Act is coming: EU wants to get a grip on AI risks

For many people, artificial intelligence (AI) is the great hope for business, healthcare and science. But there are also plenty of critics who fear the…

17.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Podcast series “KPMG Law on air”: When the family business is to be sold

Around 38,000 family businesses are currently handed over each year. In most cases, the change of ownership takes place within the family. But more and…

03.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Doubts about inability to work? What employers can do

The certificate of incapacity for work (AU certificate) serves as proof of incapacity for work due to illness. However, only if the certificate meets certain…

27.03.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

EU Buildings Directive: life cycle greenhouse potential becomes relevant

On March 12, 2024, the EU Parliament approved the amendment to the EU Buildings Directive. The directive obliges member states and, indirectly, building owners and…

19.03.2024 | Business Performance & Resilience, KPMG Law Insights

CSDDD: Provisional agreement on the EU Supply Chain Directive

The EU member states agreed on the CSDDD, the EU Supply Chain Directive, on March 15, 2024. Germany abstained from the vote. Negotiators from the…

21.02.2024 | KPMG Law Insights, KPMG Law Insights

The Digital Services Act – what does it mean for companies?

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is a key component of the EU’s digital strategy and came into force on November 16, 2022. As a regulation,…

15.02.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Data compliance management: How to implement it in practice

Part 3 of the article series “Professional tips for data compliance management”   The third part of this series of articles deals with data compliance

14.02.2024 | Business Performance & Resilience, PR Publications

Guest article in ZURe: Monitoring the implementation of the LkSG

The current issue of ZURe (p. 20 ff.) contains a guest article by KPMG Law Partner Thomas Uhlig (Head of General Business and Commercial Law),…


Anna-Elisabeth Gronert


Heidestraße 58
10557 Berlin

tel: +49 30 530199125

© 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

 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.