Parliament calls for business rental exemptions



[ad_1]

After the Council of States, the National Council has now also adopted a proposal to rent rentals for crown-damaged companies. But the two chambers still have different ideas about the scope of the rent reductions.

The National Council requires landlords to give up 70 percent of the rent for two months. In the picture, a closed fashion store in Stans.

The National Council requires landlords to give up 70 percent of the rent for two months. In the picture, a closed fashion store in Stans.

Urs Flueeler / KEYSTONE

Parliament has been overshadowed by the Federal Council and its emergency regime since mid-March. The legislature is back with the special Corona session this week. On the first day of the session, some speakers made it clear how happy they are that they can finally decide again. However, some of the voices raised about the return to democracy and the separation of powers were obviously only half serious: Parliament wants to regain their normal rights, but people’s rights seem to see parliamentarians much more relaxed.

For example, some movements found support that should compel the Federal Council to take more rapid action, which in fact excludes human rights. A good example is the two motions discussed for interventions in the rental market. First, the Council of States adopted a motion on Monday with the following request: Businesses that were mandatorily closed by the federal government or that suffer a drop in sales of at least 50% this year should not have to pay rent for two months as long as your normal rental costs do not exceed CHF 5000 per month exceed. The owner is responsible for the “generosity” of the advance. The National Council rejected this motion on Tuesday, but in exchange, with 103 to 77 votes and 15 abstentions, it adopted a motion by its own economic commission that pursues similar goals.


Only for mandatory closed companies

However, on two points, the motion adopted by the National Council is formulated in a more restricted way than the rejected version of the Council of States. On the one hand, the requirement of a lease is limited to those companies that have been compulsorily closed by the Federal Council. Also, the proposed two-month rent reduction is not 100%, but “only” 70%. Therefore, the owner must still receive 30% of his ordinary income during the two months in question; According to market experts, 30% is on average the part of the total rent that homeowners need to cover their maintenance costs. At one point, the progress of the National Council continues compared to the small parliamentary chamber version: the required rent reduction is not limited to companies with monthly rent of up to CHF 5,000. Under the initiative, the Federal Council will also examine a 20 million Swiss franc distress fund for owners.

According to supporters, this federal intervention should avoid a debt trap and the bankruptcy of tens of thousands of companies. An alliance of associations representing the interests of tenants had called for a national intervention in a letter to all parliamentarians on Monday, reducing rental costs to a maximum of 30% and covering the entire period from mid-March “to the end of impact. ” The tenants association, the commercial tenants association and the industry association Gastrosuisse have also announced that they will no longer participate in the federal government working group on commercial rentals.


The Federal Council does not want an emergency law here

Meanwhile, opponents of the mandatory rent decree criticized that the required flat-rate solution would not do justice to the variety of lease agreements, would create injustice, and lead to extensive state intervention in existing legal relationships through expropriation. Economy Minister Guy Parmelin emphasized that the Federal Council did not want to intervene under the emergency law and that landlords and tenants should find individual solutions in personal negotiations. Supporters of the federal intervention said that, in practice, the owner’s willingness to grant concessions was far from sufficient. Owner representatives express themselves quite differently, and consider that many owners are willing to grant concessions. In any case, it can be assumed that some landlords themselves, regardless of social considerations, have no interest in bankruptcy of their tenants in order to find new tenants in the midst of this crisis.

But supporters of strong federal intervention had an advantage in both houses of parliament. It is particularly politically attractive that a flat-rate lease quickly helps many small businesses, provides planning security, and without such solutions, a wave of bankruptcy is inevitable. Behind this there is also the widespread feeling that landlords tend to be big, bad, and wealthy, while tenants represent the small, good, and poor. In some cases, this image does not correspond to reality, says Donato Scognamiglio, managing director of Zurich-based real estate consultancy IAZI. The first tenants to face tenant rental lawsuits in this crisis were their attorneys, and they were not the poorest. According to the rough estimate of the IAZI chief, half of the leased commercial premises should not belong to large institutional investors, such as insurance companies, pension funds or real estate companies, but to private owners. A common type of case is the owner of an apartment building with apartments on the top floors and a commercial company on the ground floor.


The Commission proposes a compromise

The file will return to the Council of States on Wednesday. Theoretically, it would be conceivable that in the end, due to the lack of agreement between the two parliamentary chambers, no progress would be achieved, despite the fact that the National Council and the Council of States want federal intervention. But a deal may well be reached on Thursday. The Economic Commission of the Council of States ruled on Tuesday afternoon in favor of a change in the text of the motion, which should represent a compromise. According to the Commissioners, the amended text covers certain elements of the previous proposal of the Council of States, although with changes in the scope of the income reduction. Under the new proposal, monthly rents of up to CHF 15,000 will be reduced by CHF 5,000 over two months; that is, an adequate income of, for example, CHF 7000 would be reduced to CHF 2000. Income of up to CHF 5000 would be fully exempted, as in the previous proposal of the Council of States. This proposal would cover “only” businesses and activities that are temporarily closed temporarily prohibited by the federal government, such as those of physical therapists. There is also a hardship fund for owners.

The motions discussed do not explicitly require the Federal Council to intervene by emergency law. However, according to the federal administration, a normal procedure with legislative review and a referendum period is out of the question due to the urgency. According to reports, the focus is on intervention through the Federal Council emergency ordinance or a simple federal decision in an emergency procedure with a brief consultation procedure. Despite the strong and partially retroactive interference with property rights and freedom of contract, the rights of ordinary people should not be used here.

[ad_2]