The City Council met: Leipzig has virtually no power to act on residential properties that have stood empty for years

Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar: Zum deutschen Artikel.

Thousands of households in Leipzig are looking for an affordable flat and are simply unable to find one at present. One way of alleviating the housing shortage to some extent would, of course, be to put the residential buildings in Leipzig – of which there are by no means a few – that have stood empty for years back into use. In 2025, the city reported 165 such properties in response to a parliamentary question. This is a problem that squatters’ actions repeatedly highlight. On 3 September, one such building came under the spotlight at the council meeting: Einertstraße 3. ‘That would be a classic case for expropriation,’ thought the Left Party group. And they immediately tabled a sandwich motion

“In October last year, attention was drawn to the disused building at Einertstraße 3, amongst other things, through a series of squatting incidents. The background to the three other buildings was reported in response VIII-F-01865-AW-01. This shows that the local authority has very little scope for action regarding derelict properties, and that modernisation and maintenance orders are not utilised in practice due to significant legal hurdles”, stated the Left Party faction in its motion, which was championed by Councillor Juliane Nagel on 3 September.

At any rate, she, too, harboured a glimmer of hope that Einertstraße 3 might one day actually meet the conditions for expropriation.

The motion stated: “On 17 April 2026, an article entitled ‘Villa Krause remains – empty’ appeared on taz.de about the campaign, in which the following was reported regarding Einertstraße 3: ‘As for the vacant house on Einertstraße, whose owner cannot be contacted, Dienberg does not consider expropriation proceedings to be entirely out of the question. This is a case where the authorities, together with the local magistrates’ court and the land registry, might want to give such a course of action some thought.’ The political group tabling this motion welcomes this initiative and wishes to bring about its implementation through this motion.

As the prohibition on the misuse of property does not really apply to properties that are not on the market, the city is instructed to amend the state law to include further grounds that could enable action to be taken against derelict buildings. In addition, the period during which a property may remain vacant is to be shortened, and the commercial conversion of residential property is also to be included as an offence in the state law.”

Not out of the question, but not feasible

However, Thomas Dienberg had, for good reasons, expressed himself in rather evasive terms. ‘Not out of the question’ does not, after all, mean it would be possible. On the contrary. The hurdles for expropriation are so high that the city’s hands are effectively tied in practically all cases.

The Department for Urban Development also made this very clear in its statement: “Expropriation or appropriation can only be considered if there is a public interest, e.g. if the building has a detrimental impact on the social or urban environment (e.g. dilapidation, a threat to public safety or exacerbation of the housing shortage), all less restrictive measures (e.g. repair orders under Section 177 of the BauGB) have been exhausted and the owner remains inactive despite a legally binding order, the measure is proportionate and has a legal basis, and the owner is granted appropriate compensation.”

Empty coffers

Even if the City of Leipzig had sufficient funds, it would still be at a disadvantage. However, the dire financial situation means – as Thomas Dienberg, the councillor responsible for building and urban development, also explained on 3 September – that the city would not even be able to pay financial compensation in the event of an expropriation:

“To make matters worse, the current budgetary situation makes it impossible to finance, for example, the unprofitable costs arising from a modernisation and repair order, meaning that the legal requirements for the next stage of escalation – such as expropriation – are not met.

The necessary funds for the acquisition by purchase of this and similar properties under the right of pre-emption, a compulsory auction procedure, or for restoring them to a usable condition through modernisation and repair orders, as well as possible compensation for potential expropriations, are not included in the current budget.”

This also applies to Einertstraße 3. Consequently, the city is hardly in a position to put pressure on the owners to finally renovate the vacant residential properties and bring them back onto the market.

Prohibition on misuse – can more be done?

The Left Party parliamentary group had also linked its motion to ‘initiate expropriation or appropriation proceedings for the property at Einertstraße 3’ with a request that the Mayor should campaign in Dresden for an extension of the law prohibiting the misuse of property. After all, flats used for purposes other than residential ones are also in short supply in a housing market that is already stretched to breaking point.

However, this request cannot be implemented in the near future either, as the Planning Department noted in its statement: “Amending and supplementing the Law Prohibiting the Misuse of Residential Property with the aim of reducing the period of vacancy required for a property to be deemed misused from twelve to six months, and including demolition, structural alterations, rendering the property unfit for use or its neglect, as a result of which it is no longer suitable for residential purposes, and to include predominantly commercial use as grounds for a breach of the ban on misuse, has already been proposed by the City of Leipzig as part of the draft bill, alongside further amendments, but has not been taken into account.

The competent Saxon State Ministry for Infrastructure and Regional Development has already stated in the past that such amendments are only conceivable following the evaluation of the state law scheduled for 2027 and the briefing of the State Parliament on the results of the evaluation by 31 March 2028 at the latest.”

This is a laborious process

Whether Leipzig’s proposed amendments will then be taken into account remains equally unclear. Even though the administrative proposal did indeed signal that the Lord Mayor could well be entrusted with this task. It also put forward a compromise proposal regarding Einertstraße 3: “The Lord Mayor is instructed to work towards the rehabilitation of the property at Einertstraße 3 within the current framework. This will be achieved primarily by advising the owner on possible grants to address the vacancy.”

The only problem is – and Thomas Dienberg made this clear on 3 September – that the owner is simply untraceable. “Previous attempts by the administration to contact the owner in spring 2025 as part of a consultation process have failed.”

Is the owner unable to do so? Is he unwilling? Is he perhaps put off by the red tape, as AfD city councillor Udo Bütow speculated? Or is the building an object of speculation, like so many other vacant residential properties in Leipzig? Ultimately, nobody knows. SPD city councillor Frank Franke therefore found the administration’s proposal quite sensible and put it to the vote, even though it does not actually offer a solution for Einertstraße. The councillor responsible for building matters can only offer to try to make contact with the owner somehow. Dienberg: “It’s a laborious business.”

The council majority then approved the proposal by 37 votes to 18. Vacant residential properties in the city centre will therefore continue to be an issue for Leipzig in the future.