GER: Condominium Law Does Not Require a 'Three-Quotes Rule'

May 7, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter BGH) has determined that a condominium owners’ association is not required to solicit multiple comparative quotes prior to commissioning maintenance work. This judgment expressly overturns a well-established practice previously upheld by the lower courts.

Objection due to absence of comparison quotes

In the case at hand, a condominium owners’ association had passed resolutions to implement various minor maintenance activities and engaged reputable contractors for these tasks without soliciting additional quotations. Some owners disputed the resolutions exclusively on the basis that comparative quotes had not been obtained.

Quotes not strictly required

The principle of proper administration serves as the foundation for decision-making. This requires that resolutions adopted by the owners are supported by an adequate factual basis. While comparative quotations can offer a reasonable basis for such decisions, there is no universal legal requirement to obtain them. Notably, the law does not impose any rigid ‘three-quote rule.’

The decisive factor is whether the information provided is adequate from the standpoint of a reasonable, economically minded owner. Specifically, consideration must be given to the nature, extent, and urgency of the measure at hand. For minor building changes, it may be sufficient for owners to independently assess the appropriateness of cost and service. However, for more substantial projects, it is advisable to consult additional sources of information, such as expert opinions.

It is important to recognise that circumstances such as time constraints, restricted market options, or favourable prior engagements with a company may warrant foregoing the process of obtaining comparative quotes. Engaging established companies, especially those with proven track records, can provide benefits including enhanced quality, dependability, and familiarity with the property.

The BGH emphasised that the lack of comparative quotes does not preclude substantive review: A decision may remain open to challenge if the selected quotation is objectively inappropriate or excessively priced. Nevertheless, these assertions require validation through the presentation of unequivocal evidence.

Press release No. 57 on BGH V ZR 7/25 (27 March 2026)