KARLSRUHE (dpa-AFX) - May an estate agent charge a fee just for reserving a property exclusively for a prospective buyer for a period of time? This question is before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe on Thursday (10:00).

The plaintiffs had been interested in a single-family house. The brokerage firm that had the property in its portfolio made them a promise not to sell the house to anyone else for a month - for a fee of just under 15 percent of the agreed commission. In the end, the prospective buyers did not buy the house after all. In court, they demanded the return of the reservation fee they had paid.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) already dealt with a similar case in 2010 - and declared the reservation fee clause invalid at the time. The judges saw this as an attempt to secure a non-performance-related fee even if the brokerage efforts failed. The customer has of it cordially little: Because it can happen nevertheless that the past owner makes a back-pull or sells the real estate on own initiative to someone else.

At the time, the clause was directly included in the pre-formulated contract terms. In the case now there is a written reservation agreement, which was locked beside the actual brokerage contract. The Regional Court of Dresden was therefore recently of the opinion that the agreement was effectively concluded here. If it remained so, the broker could keep the fee thus.

After the experiences of the real estate federation Germany (IVD) reservation agreements against fee are not particularly widespread in the industry. The uncertain legal situation led with the brokers additionally to restraint, said the IVD-Justiziar and deputy -Bundesgeschäftsführer Christian Osthus. "Many say to themselves: one could make that - but whether that holds then or not, is uncertain." Most frequently reservation fees would find themselves at present with the purchase of new building dwellings directly from the developer.

At the BGH it concerns also the question whether such an agreement would have to be certified with the notary. In 2010, the highest civil judges had left this point unresolved because it no longer played a role. Whether there is already a ruling is open./sem/DP/zb