[ad_1]
The legal commission of the National Council did not accept the bill with 14 to 11 votes, as the parliamentary services announced on Friday. Seven members of the SVP parliamentary group, four of the FDP parliamentary group and three of the middle parliamentary group are represented on the committee. The three parliamentary groups had already expressed themselves skeptically or even negatively when dealing with the motions that were finally transferred.
In introducing the bill, the Federal Council also made no secret of the fact that it thinks little of a partial rent exemption. Last Wednesday, the government also approved a report that there is currently little evidence of major hardship for commercial tenants. It says there were “a surprising number of agreements on rent reductions between tenants.”
The government does not want to intervene much
The government is confirmed in not interfering in the relationships of private law between tenants and owners. However, the Federal Council had to act on behalf of the councils. However, he decided not to ask parliament to pass the bill.
The Covid-19 Commercial Rental Law stipulates that tenants and tenants that were closed or severely restricted in the spring only have to pay 40 percent of the rent for the period from March 17 to June 21, 2020. 60 percent cent is borne by the owner. The partial lease exemption applies if the monthly net rent does not exceed CHF 20,000.
“An unconstitutional and disproportionate usurpation”
The preliminary draft of the template was highly controversial during the consultation process: it was approved by the tenants and rejected by the owners. During the discussion in the legal commission, the well-known arguments were presented by supporters and opponents.
In the end, the negative voices overcame the advocacy debate, as the communication says. Most find it particularly shocking that the law is intended to intervene retrospectively in existing private law contractual relationships. It is “an unconstitutional and disproportionate usurpation of existing contractual rights.”
“Submission would have prevented an impending bankruptcy wave”
On the other hand, a minority of the Commission believes that the bill makes an important economic contribution to avoid the threat of bankruptcy between restaurants and retail businesses. The interference in the claims of owners associated with the law seems appropriate in the context of the difficult situation of many small and medium-sized businesses.
The National Council will discuss the law on October 29 in the special session. The Council of States will deal with the proposal in the winter session. (SDA)
