Virtual Owners' Meeting in Germany: Allowed Since 2024, Rule to 2028

Since October 2024, German owners' associations (Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaften, WEG) may move their meeting fully online. It is not unconditional, though. Here is what the law says: Section 23(1a), Section 23(1) sentence 2 and Section 48(6) WEG.

First, scope: this post covers the German WEG. Austria has a different statute (WEG 2002) and is mentioned once, separately, below.

What has applied since 17 October 2024

The basis is the Act Permitting Virtual Owners' Meetings of 10 October 2024 (BGBl. 2024 I No. 306), in force since 17 October 2024.

The core is in Section 23(1a) WEG. Owners may resolve, by at least three quarters of the votes cast, that the meeting takes place, within a period of at most three years from the resolution, without the owners and the manager being physically present at a meeting place. The law calls it a "virtual owners' meeting".

Four things sit in that one sentence:

• A resolution is needed. The virtual meeting does not exist by default.
• Three quarters of the votes cast. Not of all owners' votes, but of those cast.
• At most three years from the resolution. After that a new resolution is needed.
• No physical presence of the owners and the manager at a meeting place.

One requirement is easy to overlook: the virtual meeting must be comparable to an in-person meeting in participation and exercise of rights (Section 23(1a) sentence 2 WEG).

The rule until 2028: in-person at least once a year

The transition rule is in Section 48(6) WEG. If owners pass a Section 23(1a) resolution before 1 January 2028, at least one in-person meeting a year must be held through the end of 2028, unless the owners waive it by unanimous resolution.

An example. The community resolves in spring 2027, by a three-quarters majority, to meet virtually from now on. Then every year through 2028 needs at least one in-person meeting. If all owners want to waive it, that works only unanimously.

What if the in-person meeting does not happen? Section 48(6) sentence 2 says so expressly: a breach of this duty does not make resolutions passed in a virtual meeting void or contestable. It is no free pass, but it is an important clarification for anyone who has to secure resolutions.

Hybrid stays simpler

Distinguish the fully virtual meeting from the hybrid one. Under Section 23(1) sentence 2 WEG, owners may resolve that owners can take part in the meeting without being at its location and exercise all or some of their rights by electronic means. A simple majority suffices. This option is unchanged.

The meeting then takes place on site, and whoever cannot come takes part electronically.

The invitation: the subject must be named

Whether in-person, hybrid or virtual: for a resolution to be valid, its subject must be named in the convening notice (Section 23(2) WEG). An agenda item missing from the invitation is no minor detail.

No meeting at all: Section 23(3)

There is a third route. Under Section 23(3) sentence 1 WEG a resolution is valid without a meeting if all owners give their consent in text form. The law does not use the word "circulation resolution" (Umlaufbeschluss); it does not appear in Section 23. Under sentence 2 the owners may resolve that for a single matter the majority of the votes cast suffices. So the starting point remains unanimity, and the relaxation needs a resolution of its own that applies only to a single matter.

Austria is the other way round: there the written route is an ordinary route alongside the owners' meeting, the majority is calculated on co-ownership shares, and a resolution takes effect only once every owner has had the opportunity to comment (Section 24(1) and (4) WEG 2002). Anyone administering in Germany should not use an Austrian template, or the reverse.

Checklist before the resolution

1. Three quarters of the votes cast for the Section 23(1a) resolution.
2. Note when the three years end: after that a new resolution is needed.
3. For a resolution before 1 January 2028: plan an in-person meeting every year through 2028, unless all owners waive it unanimously.
4. Name every agenda item in the invitation (Section 23(2)).
5. Check that participation and exercise of rights are comparable to an in-person meeting.

What the law does not answer

What does "comparable to an in-person meeting" mean technically? The statute names no software, no video platform and no minimum requirements. Whether a particular set-up meets comparability is a matter of implementation and, in case of doubt, of interpretation. We claim nothing on it.

A resolution that breaches a legal rule whose observance cannot validly be waived is void; otherwise a resolution is valid until declared invalid by a final judgment (Section 23(4) WEG). How that applies to your meeting is a question for your legal adviser.

What Unitify does, and what it does not

Your billing stays where it is; Unitify is the layer for owners on top of it. Hausgeld (the owners' advance contribution) and the annual statement stay in your software.

With Unitify's online voting, the Hausverwaltung (property manager) sets up a vote, owners vote in the resident app, and the Hausverwaltung sees continuously how many units have already voted. Unitify records the votes. The tool does not make a meeting or a resolution legally valid by itself.

Two limits we state openly. First: an electronic signature on the vote is currently not connected for Germany and Austria. Second: Unitify does not bring its own video conferencing. For a virtual or hybrid meeting, use a tool such as Zoom or Google Meet, as far as the law and your documents allow. The vote itself runs in the app.

If you want to see what a vote looks like for your properties, you can start free from the online voting page.

Sources: WEG Section 23 (paragraphs 1, 1a, 2, 3 and 4), Section 48(6), gesetze-im-internet.de; Act of 10 October 2024, BGBl. 2024 I No. 306; WEG 2002 (Austria) Section 24(1) and (4), ris.bka.gv.at. Accessed 8 and 21 September 2026.