Higher Administrative Court decides: Legal dispute over the right of first refusal!

Higher Administrative Court decides: Legal dispute over the right of first refusal!

Berlin, Deutschland - On June 25, 2025, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court confirmed the effectiveness of turnover agreements to avert the municipal right of first refusal in social maintenance areas such as Boxhagener Platz, Falkplatz, Luisenstadt and Graefestrasse. The applicants concerned, real estate companies, had acquired built -ups in these quarters and signed signed reimbursement agreements in order to avert the right of first refusal of the State of Berlin. These deviations stipulate that the plaintiffs waive the establishment of residential or partial ownership, which was considered necessary in the context of the legal situation in order to ensure a legally secure purchase of the right of first refusal, in such a way berlin.de.

In the current procedures, the plaintiffs took the view that the turnover agreements were void or canceled. However, this view was rejected by the Berlin Administrative Court in the first instance and the 10th Senate of the Higher Administrative Court. The court found that turnover agreements are public contracts that meet the requirements of a comparison contract in the Administrative Procedure Act. The claims' claim that it was inadmissible exchange contracts was also rejected.

context for pre -purchase rights

The background of these judgments lies in an earlier judgment of the Federal Administrative Court, which was found on November 9, 2021. In this judgment, fundamental questions about the exercise of the right of first refusal were clarified, in particular the legal examination of the defendant, which aimed to exercise the right of first refusal in favor of the state -owned housing association WBM. The defendant was obliged to give the plaintiff a negative certificate about the non -exercise of the right of first refusal, which gives the plaintiffs an advantage, since the exercise of the right of first refusal was considered inadmissible in this special case. This was supported by the regulations of § 26 No. 4 BauGB, which excludes the exercise of the right of first refusal if the property is already built and used in accordance with the existing maintenance regulations, as bverwG.de explains.

The judgment of the Federal Administrative Court also highlighted earlier judgments by the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg and the Berlin Administrative Court. These decisions led to a clarification of the legal situation by confirming the inadmissibility of the exercise of the right of first refusal in cases where the legal provisions prohibit this. The plaintiffs accepted property -related restrictions to minimize the risk of a legal dispute. Although the revision has not been approved, the plaintiffs have the opportunity to make a complaint against this decision on non -admission about what the Federal Administrative Court will decide on how bverwg.de carried out in detail.