Everything you need to know about changes to tenancy law

The Swiss Tenants Association (ASLOCA) represents around 220,000 members spread across 21 regional sections. As such, it presents itself as one of the large non-profit organizations (NGOs) in this country. With 2.4 million tenant households, or around 60% of the total, Switzerland is a country of tenants. This proportion rises to 83% in Basel or 78% in Geneva. It falls to 40% in rural areas.

ASLOCA launched two referendums against changes to the tenancy law defended by the right in the Federal Chambers. She had no trouble collecting signatures, despite the relative legal technicality of these decisions and their supposed impact on the fate of tenants.

The first modification concerns the subletting conditions. The majority of Parliament and the Federal Council want to give more control to the owner. Under current law, tenants have the right to sublet their premises, but they must have the landlord’s permission, which they do not always do. The amendment seeks to make it mandatory to request and obtain written authorization from the lessor. If the tenant does not comply with the form, after an ineffective written summons, the lessor may terminate the lease within 30 days.

On the surface, this change is minor, but for ASLOCA it opens the door to easier termination: “The revision of the law introduces bureaucratic obstacles to subletting through new forms and allows lessors to terminate the lease of the main tenant within 30 days for minor formal breaches.

The second contested modification is much more sensitive. These are the conditions for termination by the owner for “own need”. The current law provides that owners of housing or commercial premises occupied by tenants can use them themselves quickly. But, before kicking everyone out, they must justify that they have an “urgent” need.

The majority of Parliament and the Federal Council replaced the “urgent” character with “important and current”. “Which is easier for the owner to prove,” notes the Confederation website. It will therefore be simpler for the latter to terminate the tenants’ lease.

ASLOCA does not contest the notion of own need, but is wary of the intentions of certain owners: “The fact of replacing the “urgent” own need with an “important and current” own need creates legal uncertainty and offers more possibilities to terminate the lease for unclear reasons. All this to then re-rent the accommodation more expensively.

In short, for ASLOCA, these two reforms to tenancy law are part of a desire by the right to weaken the position of tenants in order to further increase the profitability of owners. For the president of ASLOCA and state advisor Carlo Somaruga (PS/GE): “Real estate groups already hold a majority of recent housing and are driving up rents. Thanks to the two dismantling projects, they want to be able to drive people out of their homes even more easily and then increase rents.”

For the bourgeois parties, united in a committee called “Union for Housing”, these two modifications clarify the situation. At a press conference in Bern on October 8, national councilor Gregor Rutz (UDC/ZH) was surprised that the left was opposed to these minor changes. For the committee, they generate greater legal certainty and less abuse, which also benefits tenants, particularly in the context of abusive subletting.

For national councilor Olivier Feller (PLR/VD), the revision will help prevent subletting from removing housing from the market in favor of platforms like Airbnb, while the population is experiencing a period of shortage.

• Prohibition of repeated and financially abusive subletting

• Limitation of subletting to a maximum of two years

• Strengthening the owner’s right of review in the event of subletting

• Facilitating the owner’s use of rented accommodation or commercial premises in case of personal need

During the first Tamedia/20 minutes survey, the population’s perception of these two objects is noticeably different. Concerning subletting, it is more of a yes which emerges, with 47% of favorable opinions against 42% unfavorable, with still 11% undecided. On termination for personal reasons, 50% voted no, compared to 43% yes and 7% undecided. But in either case, there is not yet a clear majority.