Corona Related Closures – Council of States Sinks Store Lease Exemption – News

• In the summer, Parliament was in favor of a partial exemption from commercial rentals during the first wave of Corona.
• Now the template is off the table. The Council of States did not uphold the Covid Commercial Rentals Law.
• On Monday, the National Council rejected it in the general vote.

Operators of restaurants, shops and other public access businesses that had to close or were restricted in spring due to the corona pandemic do not receive any partial exemption from rent. Parliament has sunk the commercial rental law.

After the National Council, the Council of States also rejected the proposal, with 30 votes to 14. As in the preliminary judicial commission, a bourgeois majority of representatives of the SVP, FDP and CVP prevailed. He decided not even to step into the business.

Buried template

The National Council said no to the law on Monday by 100 votes to 87 and 7 abstentions. Previously, an SP / Greens / EPP alliance had unsuccessfully submitted a compromise proposal, according to which tenants would have been granted a rent exemption of just 50 percent.

Hope for money from the federal government and the cantons.

Open the text boxClose text box

In the summer, city councils had just accepted two motions of the same name for a partial exemption from commercial rentals. Store and restaurant operators were planned to only have paid 40 percent of the rent at the time of closure in the first Corona wave. The owner should have endured 60 percent. At that time the central faction was divided. Six months later, he now rejects the law drawn up by the Federal Council against his will.

After the no to the Commercial Leasing Law, companies severely affected by the crown crisis can still expect money from the federal government and the cantons. Parliament is currently debating the expansion of the hardship provision in the Covid-19 law. The National Council decided Monday that more companies should benefit from the hardship rule.

No new arguments for or against the rent exemption could be heard in the small chamber on Wednesday. The debate followed the family lines of the conflict.

Empty promises

The bourgeois majority argued that the law retrospectively intervenes in private contractual relationships. The mandatory exemption of commercial rentals would also create legal uncertainty and would not take into account the different levels of impact of individual companies.

Commission President Beat Rieder (CVP / VS) also pointed out on behalf of the majority that regulation would clearly come too late for many companies. A speedy enactment of the law is “probably illusory” in light of a likely referendum. Thomas Minder (non-participant / SH) added that many landlords are “smart enough” to grant voluntary leases to their tenants because they are currently barely able to find new tenants.

From the beginning, the Federal Council did not believe in the partial exemption of commercial rentals. Economy Minister Guy Parmelin referred to a recent report that there was little evidence of major hardship for commercial tenants.

He said there were “a surprising number of agreements on rent reductions between tenants.” Therefore, the government is confirmed not to interfere in the relationships of private law between tenants and owners.

“Peanuts” for large owners

In both houses, only a minority on the left recommended the adoption of the law. She described the template as vital to numerous companies, especially in the restaurant industry. The intervention in the claims of the owners linked to the law seems to him appropriate in the context of the difficult situation of many small and medium enterprises.

According to Carlo Sommaruga (SP / GE), president of the Swiss Renters Association, the lease would be “peanuts” for the main property owners. This benefited, among other things, numerous smaller tenants, who could possibly avoid bankruptcy by renting them.