In particular, the tenant alleged violations of his basic rights as guaranteed by Articles 2.1., 3.1., 13., and 14. of the Basic Law. C. As far as the constitutional complaint addresses the holding of the district court, it is unjustified. I. Article 14. of the Basic Law is not violated. The petitioner cannot appeal to Article 14.2. of the Basic Law. In the matter at hand, however, the petitioner alleges that he as a tenant is being violated in his property right under Article 14.1.
Housing represents for everyone the center of the private existence.
The individual depends on the usage of it for the satisfaction of elementary needs of life as well as for the securing of freedom and the development of his personality. The tenant's right to occupy ceases with an effective cancellation of the lease by the landlord. From this, however, one cannot conclude that legal rules and court decisions with respect to the protection of tenants cannot favor the tenant pursuant the standard set by Article 14 of the Basic Law. The guarantee of property unfolds its function to secure freedom in both directions. Also in this respect the protection of tenants' property rights does not structurally differ from the one of the landlord.