[ad_1]
It was almost a tragedy: the long rope pulling a rental exemption for stores closed due to the corona pandemic, such as restaurants, clothing stores, or hair salons. After the Federal Council vehemently opposed a solution, Parliament had to speak up for its power.
The compromise: For commercial rentals of up to 20,000 Swiss francs a month, tenants should only pay 40 percent of the rent during the lockdown period. The owners take over the remaining 60 percent. For healthcare facilities such as hospitals or doctor’s offices that have had to restrict their operations, the rental exemption applies for a maximum of two months. In cases of financial difficulties on the part of the owner, a financial difficulties fund of 20 million francs is accumulated.
The Federal Council decides on Friday
At the consultation, the various interests clashed abruptly again. The homeowners association roundly rejects the law as “arbitrary and completely disproportionate.” On the contrary, Gastrosuisse and the tenants association welcomed the push.
The commercial rental law is on the Federal Council’s agenda on Friday, and it is unlikely to make any major changes to the draft consultation. Guy Parmelin (60), Minister responsible for the Economy and Senior Vice President, has to reluctantly bring the bill to parliament.
Hundreds of millions for rental subsidies
During the shutdown, Parmelins’ own department had discussed various options for a solution, as shown by an April discussion paper, which VIEW has. The Federal Housing Office (BWO), which is subordinate to the economic department, had developed different variants.
Urgent appeal With an urgent call to tenants to agree on amicable solutions such as postponement or partial exemption of the lease, the Federal Council must bring the fighters to their senses. “Even in extraordinary situations, the Federal Council should refrain from intervening unless there are no alternatives,” the argument continues. However, the document also immediately draws attention to a major disadvantage: “In a lease, the tenant usually has the shortest lever.” This applies even more to the Corona crisis. And: “State pressure is often needed to make solutions possible.”
Federal push as an incentive The BWO also thought of possible incentive models that should allow “burden sharing”, in which “the contracting parties and, depending on the structure, the federal government and possibly the cantons and municipalities bear part of the rental costs” . . This was intended to support friendly settlements in the form of A-fonds-perdu contributions, according to which public sector financial spending was estimated at approximately “200 to 300 million Swiss francs for a period of two months of this support measure” . However, the office expressed fear that the rent subsidies would set a “precedent for new measures by the A-Peru fund.”
Emergency rent reduction The Federal Office also mentioned a reduction in emergency rents, “for example, 50 percent”, combined with partial financial compensation for homeowners. This would create legal certainty and reduce the risk of an avalanche of litigation, he emphasized as an advantage. But also to warn against this option, as there is currently no need for such extensive intervention. “When the Federal Council decrees a rent reduction, it assumes a judicial role to a certain extent,” he says in the newspaper. “This is not justifiable under constitutional law.”
Federal office shone
The Federal Housing Office advocated a combination of the first two variants. At the same time as the flash appeal to tenants, the Federal Council should, together with other offices, entrust the BWO with the task of “examining an incentive-based concept for tailor-made solutions in the area of commercial rentals.”
In the official consultation, however, the BWO was linked, also from its own department. The Secretary of State for the Economy (Seco) opposed an incentive system. He doubted “that a solution without disincentives is possible.”
Parmelin’s secretary general could not accept the proposal either. “Possibly give up option 2 entirely,” was the comment. Instead, a complementary application should be formulated: “To monitor the development of commercial income and avoid undesirable developments.”
Maurer wanted to wait
There was a vehement rejection by the finance department of Ueli Maurer (69). “The audit order is too early,” the tax authorities complained in their statement. This should be “issued only for longer closings”, but for a period of more than three months.
And the Federal Office of Justice said: “The focus should not be on the financial incentive system.” However, other measures can certainly be examined.
Slimmed down variant
Economy Minister Guy Parmelin finally went to the Federal Council in early April with a reduced request. In addition to the appeal, “new measures for individually tailored solutions and regulations for difficult situations” should be examined, but an incentive system is no longer directly mentioned.
So far the documents that VIEW received based on the Freedom of Information Act. Compared to VIEW, BWO Director Martin Tschirren wants to know that there were no differences between his Federal Office and Federal Councilor Parmelin. “In the run-up to the Federal Council decision on April 8, 2020, it was a matter of developing various solutions,” said Tschirren.
It is part of the opinion formation process to discuss opinions later and verify whether they are realistic and capable of receiving a majority. “It is completely normal for original ideas to be revised, adjusted and perhaps also scaled down in this process,” says Tschirren. “The BWO was not linked in any way by EAER in this process. On the contrary, the cooperation was always constructive and friendly. “
The entire Federal Council was further weakened
In any case, one thing is clear: Parmelin’s colleagues further weakened the resolution. He kept up with the smooth list and an order for a commercial rental check.
But that was not enough for Parliament. The new law is now on the agenda of the special session of the National Council in late October. It remains to be seen if the proposal will be approved again in parliament, because the deal is still on shaky ground.
