Suspense in tenancy law

According to the first trend delivered by the gfs.bern institute, a yes trend is emerging regarding the control of sublets. But concerning the other object, the institute is not able to identify a trend for the moment, proof that the games are very close.

These initial results are in line with the surveys carried out on behalf of the SSR. Support for both amendments had continued to erode over the course of the campaign. The latest survey suggests a refusal of the object based on the owners’ own needs (53% “no” and 44% “yes”) and a slightly more uncertain outcome for that on subletting (50 % of “yes” and 47% of “no”).

A people of tenants

Normally, everything should have gone smoothly for these two proposed modifications. They are supported both by the government and by the majority of Parliament. However, the Swiss generally tend to follow the voting recommendations of their authorities.

Furthermore, these two proposals do not seem at first glance extravagant, but rather common sense. However, the Swiss generally tend to be reasonable and pragmatic when it comes to voting.

It therefore seemed like a royal road to obtaining double popular approval. But now, a grain of sand has slipped into this well-oiled mechanism: the rise to the barricades of tenant defense circles to sink the project. And among a population of tenants – around 60% of the population – this voice clearly resonates.

Clarification for some, pejoration for others

The first proposed modification aims to prevent abusive subletting. The text grants more latitude to owners by stipulating in particular that the subletting of real estate must be approved in writing by the owner and that the latter may refuse it if it exceeds a duration of two years or if he sees major disadvantages.

The second modification provides that an owner can more easily terminate a tenant’s lease if he wants to use the rented property for his own use. Currently, in the event of a dispute, the procedures can take several years.

For those in favor of adapting the law – right-wing parties and real estate circles – the proposed modifications are very targeted and only clarify notions that already exist in current law.

For opponents – left-wing parties and tenant defense circles – these changes are, at best, useless, and at worst worsen the situation for tenants by dismantling protection mechanisms, in particular against unfair leave.

Plus