Tenant does not want to pay the rental deposit - damage is time-barred

After reading the thread, I conclude:
The tenant has caused damage to the landlord. It is undisputed that there is a stain on the floor. It remains unclear whether other repairs mentioned by the landlord would have been necessary.
The landlord withholds the deposit and waives an additional payment justified from his point of view.
The tenant demands his deposit back and refers to a statute of limitations.

It apparently is not about whether the landlord must be compensated for the obviously caused damage and to what extent. It is more about the landlord evading damage compensation with formal arguments.

Solidarity for the thread creator as "one of us in the forum" aside - my impression is that the proposed settlement is very favorable to the tenant. Continuing to sue "on principle" causes complete incomprehension in me. What kind of "principle" is that?

In the end, both landlord and tenant are harmed and the lawyers have earned their fees.

You have clearly overlooked the completely inappropriate amount of the landlord's withholding.

You seem to have overlooked the completely inappropriate amount of the landlord's withholding.

I cannot judge that. If the floor covering needs to be renewed, the amount may be appropriate. If only cleaning is necessary, the amount does indeed seem completely inappropriate. There is also talk of further repairs and defective painting work. I cannot assess that either. You draw the conclusion from the one-sided information that the landlord's withholding is completely excessive. I consider that premature.

Good summary. I'm really curious to see how it turns out.

To maybe bring some clarity:

The stain exists, that was never denied... it is recorded in the handover protocol. Everything else was accepted without complaints and signed by both parties. My partner even pointed out this stain because the landlord hadn’t noticed it at all. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have appeared in the handover protocol and the matter would have been settled anyway... the landlord then said that this stain is not a problem and can be easily cleaned...

We whitewashed all the walls, although maybe we didn’t even have to do it..?... then we moved out. That was in January 2016...

Then I was chasing my deposit for almost 2 years and it was never mentioned that there was still a damage to be paid. When it eventually came up, it was again said: it’s nothing serious... it was just that one stain... we would come to an agreement... the depreciation must be taken into account and blah blah...

And then I simply get a letter stating that this not so serious stain should suddenly cost 1,200 euros... It’s not even an invoice, but some offer from 2 years ago, which was never used. No depreciation or anything taken into account...

The landlord does not respond to attempts to contact him and then wonders why I don’t accept it? Even that depreciation is not taken into account is of no interest to him. What is my option here? Just transfer the money and accept everything?

If the landlord shows no understanding at all and talks big, why shouldn’t I do the same? Suddenly it’s also said that he had to have the apartment painted again because our painting work was not good enough... that is what a handover is for... to identify and record defects. He also missed that here... and I can no longer understand it since it was over 2 years ago. Also, during these 2 years, there was never any talk of poor painting work.

And who is the settlement supposed to benefit? More likely the landlord, whose behavior caused the situation to escalate in the first place.

In my eyes, the damage actually plays only a secondary role in this case. No matter what kind of damage it is... It is legally regulated that the landlord can claim damages from a tenancy up to six months after moving out. But he didn’t consider it necessary for two years and now he is out of luck. We were even interested in an amicable settlement, but he insists on his amount, which is invalid anyway because the depreciation wasn’t considered.

Now coming with a settlement and trying to look like the good guy because he’s backing down from his claim (which is indisputably wrong) is the famous “crowning moment.” He could have done that half a year ago... then we would have avoided court, but now... I stick to my “principle.”

PS: You can tell from the post that this matter is very emotionally charged... so please don’t take it too personally.

To summarize what I have gathered: the stain, quite inconspicuous and only about the size of a Christmas tree stand due to some rust, has never been repaired. The size of the stain is probably not a justification to replace the entire room. The apartment has continued to be rented out with the stain. Therefore, there is no reduction or disadvantage from this stain, which is either overlooked (landlord) or accepted (tenant).