Europäisches Justizportal - Case Law
Schließen

DIE BETAVERSION DES PORTALS IST JETZT ONLINE!

Besuchen Sie die Betaversion des Europäischen Justizportals und lassen Sie uns wissen, was Sie darüber denken!

 
 

Navigationsleiste


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID V ZR 105/02
Mitgliedstaat Deutschland
Common Name link
Decision type Sonstiges
Decision date 29/11/2002
Gericht BGH
Betreff
Kläger
Beklagter
Schlagworte

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 1.

1. Privatrechtliche städtebauliche Verträge unterliegen, soweit sie Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen enthalten, nicht der Inhaltskontrolle nach §§ 9-11 ABGG (nunmehr §§ 307-309 BGB), da ihre Anwendung von § 11 BauGB als spezialgesetzliche Vorschrift verdrängt wird.
2. Durch vorformulierte Vertragsbedingungen in privatrechtlichen städtebaulichen Verträgen entzieht sich die Gemeinde wegen des Gleichbehandlungsgebots nicht dem Aushandeln der Konditionen im Einzelfall.
3. Im Rahmen der Prüfung der angemessenen Vertragsgestaltung gem. § 11 BauGB sind die den §§ 10 und 11 AGBG (jetzt §§ 308 und 309 BGB) zu Grunde liegenden Wertungen zu berücksichtigen.
By bargain and sale dated 8.2.1988 the respondents purchased a building plot from the Deutsche Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (German Town Development Company Ltd.). The following was therein agreed:
If the purchaser sells his site within ten years following conclusion of contract then it must pay the difference between the selling price and the original purchase price to the municipality B. (the claimant); If the site has been developed in whole or in part, the amount pavable is the difference between the value of the developed land as determined by the valuation committee and the purchase price …
The respondent, who had in the meantime erected a large single occupancy house on the site, sold the property by bargain and sale dated 29.6. at a profit. The claimant sought payment of the amount of the levy. In both instances the claim was unsuccessful. The Berufungsgericht (court to which appeals on points of fact and law are submitted) dismissed the claim, reasoning that the profit payment clause was null and void as a breach of § 9 (1) AGBG. The application of this provision was stated not to be precluded by § 11 (1), 2nd sentence No. 2 BauGB. Due to the considerably stronger position of the public administration in the context of Einheimischenmodellen (schemes by which municipalities enable certain residents to obtain land for residential building purposes) the contractual partner was said to be protected by the rules of the AGBG. With leave to appeal the claimant pursued his claim further. The Revision (appeal on points of law) was successful and led to judgment against the respondent in the terms applied for.
Contrary to the view of the Berufung court, the BGH (Bundesgerichtshof - Federal Supreme Court) assumed that the claimant can support its claim for payment of the profit on the basis of a valid agreement under § 6 (3), 1st sentence of the bargain and sale.
The BGH held that the standards by which the claim was to be assessed were both the prohibition of incommensurate disadvantage according to § 9 AGBG (in conjunction with Art. 229 § 5 EGBGB – Einführungsgesetz Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – Introductory Act to the BGB), as well as the principle of reasonable contractual formulation now codified in § 11 (2), 1st sentence BauGB. However, it stated that private law urbanistic contracts which contain standard contract terms (§ 1 AGBG, now § 305 (1) BGB), are not additionally subject to the content review according to §§ 9 to 11 AGBG (now according to §§ 307 to 309 BGB), as § 11 BauGB as a special statutory provision ousts the law of standard contract terms. The protective purpose of the law of standard contract terms is primarily designed to hinder the unilateral exploitation of the freedom of contractual formulation by one contractual party. With urbanistic contracts pursuant to Einheimischenmodellen however, in contrast to preformulated conditions in other contexts, the aim of the code is not to balance the absence of a check on abuse of position (Fehlen der Richtigkeitsgewähr), which could otherwise be expected as a result of negoitiation of contractual terms.
The BGH argued that with the preformulation of contractual conditions the municipality does not thereby elude an individual negotiation of terms. In contrast to typical private law actors it does not enjoy such discretion, as it is prevented by the principle of equal treatment anchored in constitutional law from negotiating different conditions with different interested parties in the same circumstances in pursuance of Einheimischenmodelle.
The BGH further held that the purchaser of land in the context of Einheimischenmodellen is not however without protection against contractual conditions used by the municipality. In the context of the monitoring of reasonable contractual formulation according to § 11 BauGB, it is possible to review both the contractual exchange relationship as well as the individual contractual clauses, whereby the values underlying §§ 10 and 11 AGBG (now §§ 308 and 309 BGB) are to be taken into account.
In its examination of reasonable contractual formulation, the BGH arrived at the conclusion that the municipality with its profit pament clause in the context of Einheimischenmodellen pursued an interest worthy of protection, which did not place any unreasonable burden on the respondent. It therefore entered judgment against the respondent.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available