Munich: Artist Flatz has to vacate his studio on the Praterinsel – Munich

Defeat for Wolfgang Flatz in the legal dispute over the use of a former garage on the Praterinsel: The renowned artist has to vacate the rooms that he has used as a studio since 1988 and later also as living space, and which he has been fighting for for years. In this central point, the District Court of Munich I upheld a lawsuit filed by Flatz’s landlord, the construction and real estate entrepreneur Urs Brunner. However, Brunner did not get through with his demand that Flatz have to pay him 19,000 euros in compensation for use. The court only considered a claim of 1000 euros to be justified.

Whether Flatz actually leaves the garage at Praterinsel 3 and hands it over to Brunner is still an open question. An appeal against the judgment is possible. Flatz’s lawyer said she still had to discuss how to proceed with her client. Brunner could also enforce the eviction before a possible decision in the second instance. It is also still unclear whether he is aiming for this or whether he is waiting for the further progress of the matter. His lawyer said on Wednesday afternoon that he had not yet been able to speak to Brunner.

The 69-year-old Flatz, who became internationally known as a performance artist and also works as a visual artist, was given the garage in the late 1980s by the then owner of the Praterinsel without having to pay any money for it. According to Flatz, his return service was to make the Praterinsel known for his presence and to curate exhibitions.

The owner had electricity, water and heating turned off

Urs Brunner, one of the major players in the Munich real estate market for years, bought the Praterinsel in 2015 and verbally let Flatz know at the end of 2018 that he had to get out. A tortuous story began with attempts to reach an agreement. Flatz reported in court that Brunner had offered to buy some works of art if Flatz left. Brunner’s wife offered 300,000 euros for three works at the beginning of 2019, but Urs Brunner is said to have canceled the deal again.

The relationship deteriorated over time. Last year, Brunner demanded the eviction in writing and terminated the tenancy – but only as a precaution, because Brunner and his lawyer denied that there was a valid tenancy at all, the use was only based on favours. Brunner also had the electricity, water and heating shut off and the entrance to the building locked. On the other hand, Flatz obtained temporary injunctions in court and made the conflict public with actions under the motto “Not like that, Mr. Brunner” – which irritated the landlord even more.

In her verdict, the judge explained that in 1988 there was indeed a verbal conclusion of an open-ended rental agreement, which Brunner took over with the purchase of the Praterinsel. A payment of money is not absolutely necessary for a tenancy, other monetary benefits would also be possible in return, Flatz provided such. When Flatz also expanded the garage for residential purposes, a “mixed tenancy” between commercial and residential was created, writes the judge. However, this was mainly commercial. Therefore, Flatz cannot claim the much stricter protection against dismissal for living space. According to the judgment of the regional court, the termination of the commercial lease agreement came into effect on December 31, 2021.

source site