The Court Rules that the Commission Failed in their Duty As Per Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.

In a landmark ruling, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has confirmed that usage contracts for wind energy installations are treated legally like lease agreements. This decision follows a dispute between a farmer, Dr. Olaf Zinke, and a wind energy company over a 20-year lease agreement for his land.

Dr. Zinke had leased his property to the wind energy company for two decades, with the understanding that he could continue farming as usual. However, the non-payment contract term was not potentially unlimited, and the farmer could only withdraw from the lease if the refusal of the permit was final, and the permit from third parties was not being challenged by objection and/or lawsuit.

The parties had agreed to a fixed contract term of 20 years in § 3, sentence 3 of the usage contract, and the ordinary termination was not already ineffective because at the time of termination, there was still no fixed-term lease. A right to extraordinary termination for important reasons is explicitly provided in § 8 of the usage contract, but only the non-fulfillment of the payment obligation is named as an important reason.

The farmer terminated the lease after years of delay in issuing the necessary permits and construction not beginning. However, the regional court and the higher regional court both ruled in favour of the wind power operator's complaint, declaring the farmer's termination invalid.

The OLG court ruled that the farmer was not entitled to an ordinary termination of the contract relationship. The BGH agreed with the OLG on most points, stating that by excluding the right to ordinary termination, the farmer is not unfairly disadvantaged.

The BGH also concluded that the farmer's termination of the usage contract was invalid. The lease agreement stipulated that the property had to be made available from the start of construction. As construction had not yet begun, the farmer's termination was deemed premature.

The wind energy company sued the farmer for the issuance of notarial declarations for the entry of easements and land charges in its favour. The search results do not contain information about the name of the court that ultimately ruled the lease agreement between the wind energy company and the farmer invalid because it was treated as a rental contract.

This ruling sets a significant precedent for future wind energy lease agreements, emphasising the importance of understanding the legal implications of such contracts and adhering to the agreed terms.

The Court Rules that the Commission Failed in their Duty As Per Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.