The question of how costs are to be allocated within a condominium association is one of the central issues in condominium law. It applies to a wide range of practical situations, such as the renovation of common property, the replacement of technical systems, or ongoing maintenance. For you as a condominium owner, it is crucial to know the criteria by which costs are allocated and who has the final say in this matter.
The starting point is always the statutory regulation. The Condominium Act stipulates that costs are generally to be allocated according to the so-called co-ownership shares. These shares typically reflect the size or value of the respective unit. Section 16(2) of the WEG is decisive in this regard. According to this provision, all owners bear the costs of common measures on a pro-rata basis—regardless of whether they derive an individual benefit from the specific measure.
However, it is possible to deviate from this basic legal rule. The community bylaws play a central role here. Within them, the condominium owners can enter into binding agreements that provide for a different cost allocation. Such arrangements are widespread in practice. For example, it can be stipulated that certain costs are to be borne only by those owners who actually use a specific facility—such as an underground parking garage or an elevator.
These agreements generally take precedence over the statutory provisions. For you, this means: As soon as a valid agreement exists, it is decisive and supersedes the statutory cost allocation. However, this is contingent upon the community having been authorized to enter into such an agreement in the first place.
In addition to the law and agreements, a resolution passed by the owners’ meeting may also serve as a means of cost allocation. In certain cases, deviating rules may be established by majority vote, particularly regarding the allocation of operating costs or specific measures. However, this option is legally limited.
Namely, a resolution may not violate existing agreements. This is a central principle that repeatedly leads to disputes in practice. The owners’ meeting is not authorized to circumvent a binding provision of the community bylaws by majority decision.
This is also illustrated by a recent decision of the Federal Court of Justice from February 2025. In the underlying case, the community bylaws stipulated that the costs of an underground parking garage were to be borne exclusively by the owners who had a parking space. However, in the course of a renovation, the owners’ meeting decided to distribute the costs among all owners—on the grounds that the garage constituted common property.
An affected owner without a parking space objected to this resolution and filed a lawsuit to have it invalidated. The Federal Court of Justice ruled in his favor. The resolution was declared invalid because it violated the existing agreement in the community bylaws. The court made it clear that such a deviation is not permissible by majority vote.
For you, this means: If the condominium owners wish to deviate from an existing agreement, this is generally only possible through a corresponding amendment to the agreement. Such an amendment usually requires the unanimous consent of all condominium owners.
The decision also highlights how important it is to have a thorough understanding of one’s own community bylaws. Many conflicts can be avoided by checking early on whether and what rules regarding cost allocation already exist.
In conclusion, it can be stated that cost allocation within the condominium association follows a clear hierarchy. First, existing agreements take precedence, followed by statutory provisions. Resolutions may serve as a supplement but must not violate either the law or existing agreements.
I therefore recommend that you take a close look at the community bylaws and carefully review the legal framework before making any decisions. This creates clarity and prevents future legal disputes.
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.