Power cable of TEN (Thuringian Energy Networks) on construction site

Thanks in advance.

Oh man, just because someone missed something and I relied on the encumbrance-free status in the land register, now I have to pay for it, great.

No pipelines are mentioned in the purchase contract.

In principle, you should be able to rely on the statements in the land register, so you acquired in good faith. Now the matter becomes very legal, so you will have to consult a lawyer. I would definitely not agree to bear the costs of the relocation without legal examination.

In principle, you should be able to rely on the statements in the land register; in this respect, you have acquired in good faith.

Well, just because a land register is free of easements for pipelines doesn’t mean that there are actually no pipelines there—keyword loan, loan-like relationship, concession contract, and so on. Therefore: if nothing is stated in the land register, explicitly include in the contract that there are no pipelines on the property. Either the seller then gets cold feet and investigates, or he signs and is then responsible.

Well, just because a land register is free of pipeline rights doesn’t mean that there are actually no pipelines here, keyword loan, loan-like relationship, concession agreement, etc.

I would see it the same way and would also extend your list by the old law easement. This can also occur, for example, with old farms.

I'm in a similar situation, but in my case it's a gas line. So I looked into the subject a bit... to put it briefly: You do not have to pay for the relocation.

Reasoning:
1. Basically, you can rely on the correctness of the land register. If no encumbrances are recorded at the time of purchase and it cannot be proven that you knew about the line before the purchase, then it must be assumed that what is stated in the land register is correct.

2. If the line was laid before the reunification, energy suppliers could simply register the line rights in the land register until, I think it was 2010. I guess TEN missed this deadline. As long as the property has/had the same owner, the right of way for the line exists even without entry in the land register. If the property is sold and the right of way is not officially secured... then the energy supplier is out of luck and must relocate the line.

3. It's also worth taking a look at the Low Voltage Ordinance. More precisely, §12 is worth checking out. It actually pretty clearly regulates what you as the connection user must tolerate and what not, or rather who has to pay for a relocation. In short: if it’s not your own connection, then no.

I do find it remarkable that the TEN initially want to charge you for it. With my network operator, there was no hesitation. They are now planning a new route with a detour of several hundred meters just because of me...

1. Basically, you can rely on the accuracy of the land register. If no encumbrances are registered at the time of purchase and it cannot be proven that you knew about the line before the purchase, then one must assume that what is stated in the land register is correct.

The crux is that he, as the buyer, said: No right of way for lines on the property = no line on the property. And that is not correct. In addition to the scenarios I have already mentioned above, there are also lines in public paths and streets on private property. These lines also do not appear in the land register but are secured by concession contracts.

then the energy supply company had bad luck and has to relocate the line.

Basically, there is no claim for relocation, but a claim for removal. If the owner asserts this claim, however, the network operator can apply for an expropriation procedure. Most network operators will probably avoid removal or expropriation by relocating the line.

But I do find it quite astonishing that TEN initially wants to charge you for that.

This is not astonishing at first; cost reimbursement according to the polluter pays principle is standard here. Possibly, the peculiarities of the individual case were not duly taken into account here.