German Federal Constitutional Court Halts Eviction of 88-Year-Old Woman

The German Federal Constitutional Court intervened at the last minute to halt the scheduled eviction of an 88-year-old woman who suffered a severe stroke earlier this year. Lower courts had previously authorized the eviction, disregarding medical warnings that the elderly tenant was unfit to be moved.

The case stems from a severe stroke the woman suffered on April 16, 2026, which significantly impaired her mobility and speech. Following a months-long stay in a rehabilitation clinic, she remained heavily dependent on support, struggled with independent movement, faced a high risk of falls, and experienced severe communication difficulties. Despite these conditions, an eviction was scheduled for September 30, 2026, based on an eviction judgment issued by the local court in Nauen on January 20, 2021.

Ahead of the scheduled date, the senior citizen submitted medical documentation, including an assessment from September 3, 2026, which explicitly classified her as unfit for eviction based on a rehabilitation clinic report. The attending primary care physician also supported this evaluation, warning that the familiar, adapted apartment served as a vital stabilizing factor and that a forced relocation could severely damage her health. Nevertheless, the competent specialized courts maintained that the eviction could proceed, suggesting that relatives should arrange alternative housing.

The Federal Constitutional Court sharply criticized the lower courts' reliance on family members to secure housing. The justices ruled that the mere assumption that relatives could find a suitable apartment or finance it is insufficient. Courts must concretely verify whether available and medically suitable alternative accommodations actually exist and whether the senior citizen could physically withstand the transition.

The high court emphasized that for individuals in need of care, a change of residence can cause tremendous difficulties, as they rely on barrier-free spaces, specialized equipment, and reliable daily routines. Because the 88-year-old could barely communicate and required extensive assistance to walk, the lower courts were obligated to examine how her care would be secured during and after the process, rather than assuming potential help was available without verifying implementation.

Furthermore, the decision strengthens the legal weight of medical certificates in eviction proceedings. The justices noted that when serious health risks are plausibly presented and the court lacks specialized medical knowledge, a formal expert opinion may be necessary. They rejected the lower court's conclusion that the woman's return home from rehabilitation implied she could also handle a forced eviction to an uncertain destination.

Legal protection against such measures is anchored in Section 765a of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows enforcement courts to suspend or prohibit enforcement if special circumstances constitute hardship that is incompatible with public morals. The constitutional court underscored that unreasonable hardship is not limited to suicide risk and that other severe health hazards are protected under Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, which safeguards life and physical integrity.

Ultimately, the court ruled that judicial review cannot be restricted to whether a person physically survives the immediate eviction process. Courts must rigorously evaluate the subsequent health consequences and ensure that necessary medical care and support are immediately available at any new location.