Notice of an owners meeting in Germany: period, form and agenda

The manager (Verwalter) convenes the owners meeting (Eigentümerversammlung) in text form. The notice period should be at least three weeks, except in cases of particular urgency (§ 24 (1) and (4) WEG). What counts is receipt by the owner, not dispatch. Every agenda item must be named in the notice (§ 23 (2) WEG).

The notice decides whether the resolutions of a meeting will hold. Anyone who sends it too late, forgets an agenda item or cannot prove delivery risks that a well prepared meeting turns out to be worthless. This guide shows how the three-week period is counted in the calendar, what text form requires, what belongs on the agenda and what follows from a defective notice. The course of the meeting itself is covered in our guide to the owners meeting.

Who convenes the meeting, and when

The meeting of the owners is convened by the manager at least once a year (§ 24 (1) WEG). The manager must also convene a meeting if more than a quarter of the owners request it in text form, stating the purpose and the reasons (§ 24 (2) WEG). A single owner therefore cannot force a meeting, more than a quarter of the community can. What is counted are owners, not units: in a community of four owners one of them is not enough, it takes two.

If there is no manager, or if the manager refuses in breach of duty to convene the meeting, the law steps in. The meeting may then be convened by the chair of the advisory board (Verwaltungsbeirat), the deputy chair, or an owner authorised by resolution (§ 24 (3) WEG). The statute names exactly these three. If anyone else sends out the invitation, the meeting suffers from a defect in convening, and the resolutions passed there can be attacked.

The three-week period and how it is counted

The wording is short. The notice period should be at least three weeks, unless there is a case of particular urgency (§ 24 (4) sentence 2 WEG). It is a “should” provision with a narrow exception, and three weeks is a minimum rather than a target.

A “should” provision is not an invitation to improvise. Where the period is undercut without particular urgency, the notice is defective. The statute does not define particular urgency. What is meant are situations in which waiting harms the community, such as emergency works on the building or a deadline running out towards a third party.

The clock starts on receipt. Notice is a declaration of intent (Willenserklärung), and towards an absent person such a declaration becomes effective at the moment it reaches them (§ 130 (1) sentence 1 BGB). How exactly the days are counted is not regulated. Anyone who wants certainty counts neither the day of receipt nor the day of the meeting and leaves 21 full days in between. This strict count costs one day of lead time and saves the later argument about whether the period was observed.

Example 1: The meeting takes place on Thursday, 15.10.2026. The day of the meeting does not count, and 21 full days must precede it, that is 24.09. to 14.10. The invitation must therefore reach the owners by Wednesday, 23.09.2026 at the latest. An email that lands in the inbox on that Wednesday keeps the period. A letter that is only handed to the post office on that Wednesday does not.

Delivery times and weekends push receipt back, by different amounts for different owners, and this is where notices fail in practice.

Example 2: The meeting takes place on Tuesday, 10.11.2026. The 21 full days run from 20.10. to 09.11., so the invitation must arrive by Monday, 19.10.2026 at the latest. The manager posts the letters on Friday, 16.10. In between lies a Sunday, when nothing is delivered. If a single letter arrives only on Tuesday, 20.10., the period is missed for that owner and every resolution of the meeting becomes open to attack. Posting on Monday, 12.10., would have been safe.

Where the last possible day of receipt falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, § 193 BGB is of no help: it moves the end of a period to the next working day, which would shorten the notice period instead of extending it. The safe route is to bring receipt forward to the preceding working day. Some community rules (Gemeinschaftsordnung) contain their own, longer notice period, so the declaration of partition (Teilungserklärung) deserves a look before every invitation.

Text form: what qualifies

Notice is given in text form (§ 24 (4) sentence 1 WEG). What that means follows from § 126b BGB: a legible declaration naming the person who makes it, given on a durable medium. Under § 126b sentence 2 BGB a medium is durable where it lets the recipient keep or store a declaration addressed to them personally so that it stays accessible for an adequate period, and where the medium itself is capable of reproducing the declaration unchanged.

A letter, an email and a PDF attachment therefore qualify, and § 126b BGB does not call for a handwritten signature. A phone call, an announcement in the stairwell or a note on the board do not: a note on the board is not a declaration that reaches the individual owner, and without receipt no period begins.

Anyone giving notice by email needs a current address for every single owner and evidence that the message arrived. Where an address is missing, a letter goes out to that owner and the period is measured by that letter. The foundation of timely notice is a well kept owners list, not the sending tool.

The agenda: no announcement, no valid resolution

For a resolution to be valid, the subject matter must be named in the notice (§ 23 (2) WEG). The sentence is short, its consequences are not: on an item that was not announced, the meeting cannot pass a resolution that holds. Owners are meant to decide from the agenda whether to travel, how to vote and whether to grant a proxy with instructions.

A subject is named where an owner can tell without asking what will be voted on. The line “roof” does not achieve that. “Resolution on the refurbishment of the flat roof in line with the quote from Muster GmbH of 12.08.2026 for EUR 78,000, financed from the maintenance reserve” does. Under the heading any other business, discussion and information are permissible, a binding vote is not.

The wording of the later resolution need not be settled in advance: an amendment within the announced subject matter, to the amount or to a condition, stays on safe ground, while leaving that subject matter does not. Motions from individual owners belong on the agenda as well, submitted to the manager before the invitations go out. Which majorities then apply is set out in our guide to WEG resolutions.

When the notice period is missed

A defect in the notice does not make a resolution worthless automatically. A resolution is void only where it infringes a rule of law compliance with which cannot validly be waived (§ 23 (4) sentence 1 WEG). Otherwise a resolution is valid as long as it has not been declared invalid by a final judgment (§ 23 (4) sentence 2 WEG). A resolution passed after late notice is therefore challengeable, not void.

In practice the resolution applies for the time being. The manager has to implement it, the Hausgeld resolved, the monthly advance towards the community’s costs, is payable, and the contract may be awarded. Anyone who wants the resolution set aside has to go to court, and quickly. The action to challenge a resolution (Anfechtungsklage) must be brought within one month of the resolution being passed and substantiated within two months (§ 45 sentence 1 WEG). Once the month has run out, the resolution stands despite the defective notice. Only where the deadline was missed through no fault can reinstatement (Wiedereinsetzung) be sought, since § 45 sentence 2 WEG applies §§ 233 to 238 ZPO accordingly.

Whether a challenge succeeds depends in practice on whether the defect can have affected the outcome. An owner who received the invitation two days late but attended and voted stands in a weaker position than one who could no longer organise the journey. For the management the calculation is simple: an extra week of lead time costs nothing, litigation costs fees and blocks the resolution for months.

The Vollversammlung as a way out

Curing a defective notice is not provided for in the statute. Recognised in practice is the Vollversammlung, the meeting at which the community is complete: where all owners attend or are validly represented and nobody objects to the way the meeting was convened, the resolutions hold in spite of the defect. Nobody was kept from preparing or from attending, so the purpose of the period is met.

Nobody should rely on it. A single owner who is absent, who is not validly represented or who has the defect recorded in the minutes is enough. In a community of four owners the Vollversammlung is a workable route for urgent cases, in one with forty owners it is an illusion.

For genuinely urgent cases there is a second route. Even without a meeting a resolution is valid where all owners declare their consent to it in text form (§ 23 (3) sentence 1 WEG). This written circulation procedure (Umlaufverfahren) demands unanimity but saves date and notice period. For a single subject matter the owners may in addition resolve that the majority of the votes cast is sufficient (§ 23 (3) sentence 2 WEG).

Notice periods in Frankfurt and the Rhine-Main region

The WEG is federal law. The same periods apply in Frankfurt as in Offenbach, Bad Homburg or Eschborn. What differs is the composition of the communities. In many Frankfurt buildings a substantial share of the owners does not live on site, some of them abroad. For them delivery times decide whether the period is observed, and a week is tight for post that has to cross a border.

In our condominium management in Frankfurt we therefore plan dispatch four weeks before the date, give notice by email wherever an address is on file, and document each dispatch with date and recipient. What else marks out careful management is set out under certified property management.

Editorial responsibility: digo.immo Verwaltung & Invest - certified residential property manager under § 26a WEG (IHK Frankfurt), licence under § 34c GewO. About the certification

This article provides general information only and does not replace individual legal advice. It was created with AI assistance; the legal statements have been checked against the official texts of the law. Legal status: 21/09/2026; laws and case law may change. No warranty is given as to completeness, accuracy or timeliness. When in doubt, please seek qualified advice.