On November 24, the people will vote on whether or not to revise the law on the right to lease. Two aspects of the law are subject to modification: subletting and termination of a bath for own needs. While supporters of the project believe that it is a simple clarification of the texts, Asloca denounces a revision intended to facilitate lease terminations.
During the next votes, two out of four federal objects concern the right to lease. These are two revisions of the law concerning respectively subletting and termination for own purposes.
Today, a tenant can sublet the whole or part of his property, temporarily, after requesting the lessor. Authorization does not have to be in writing but in practice it is the norm. The aim of the modification of the Code of Obligations here is to combat unauthorized subletting and abusive rent. Particularly via platforms like Airbnb. If a framework exists in Geneva where rental via this site must not exceed 90 days, the Swiss parliament wants to change the law.
Clarify the conditions
With the revision, the tenant must request and obtain authorization from the lessor in writing and the latter may refuse according to a list of criteria, introduced in the text by “in particular”. However, the Association for the Defense of Tenants’ Rights (ASLOCA) sees in this adverb the door open to all arguments towards a refusal… and an intrusion by the lessor. “The owner will be able to decide whether or not you can sublet your apartment. He will invite himself into the lives of tenants (…) including for commercial leases where he will invite himself to the board of directors!” storm Christian Dandres, lawyer at ASLOCA.
An argument that Diane Barbier-Mueller, real estate management administrator and PLR deputy, does not hear. “This is not what allows you to pull conditions out of the hat. “In particular” just allows us to encompass regular, current practices, in the interest of all parties,” she explains.
Easy termination
As for revision for own needs, the law today allows an owner to terminate the lease of a rented property to re-appropriate it, solely on the grounds of an “urgent” need. With the new regulations, it will suffice that it is “important and current”, easier to prove for the owner. Where supporters see a protection of property, opponents see an offensive to facilitate terminations and thus increase rents even more.
With this modification of tenancy law, supporters and opponents clash over “Who”? Who is truly protected via these two revisions? For Christian Dandrès, the tenant would lose out while for Diane Barbier-Mueller the protection would be double. Verdict in the polls on November 24.
