Winter session – National Council says no to Covid-19 commercial rental law – News

• The National Council rejects the Covid-19 Commercial Rental Law by 100 to 87 votes and 7 abstentions.
• Under the law, stores that had to close due to Corona’s measures would have received a partial lease.
• If the Council of States does not pass the law on Wednesday, it is definitely off the table.

In the summer, Parliament was in favor of a partial exemption from commercial rentals during the first wave of Corona. Six months later, the relevant presentation is in grave danger. The National Council today rejected the Covid Commercial Rental Law in the general vote.

The civil alliance prevails

The grand chamber follows the decision of its preliminary judicial commission, which had already asked not to act on the petition. By the end of October, the National Council had weakly voted to stand up. After detailed consultation, he declined the submission.

An alliance of SVP, FDP, the majority of the middle parliamentary group and some GLP representatives prevailed. The losers are the SP, the Greens and the EPP, which belongs to the center group.

This is what the Covid-19 Commercial Leasing Law is about

Open the text boxClose text box

• It’s about this: Businesses that had to close or severely restrict their operations in the spring of 2020 due to federal measures should be financially relieved: they should only have to pay 40% of the rent for this period, the rest would be borne by the landlord. Restaurants, hairdressing salons or gyms, some 80,000 companies, could benefit from the regulation.
• Who is against / in favor and why? Civil parties and commercial and real estate associations are against the law. They see it as an excessive usurpation of contracts between tenants and owners. Both the left-wing parties and the tenant, municipal and restaurant associations are in favor of the law. It is vital for many companies that have been severely affected by the corona pandemic. For some of the legal commission of the National Council, the law does not go too far: it is about applying throughout the duration of the Covid 19 pandemic and expanding so that those affected by the measures can also be compensated by the cantons and municipalities.
• Whats Next? After the rejection of the law by the National Council, this Wednesday will be on the agenda of the Council of States. If the Council of States, as recommended by its Legal Commission, does not comply with the law, it is definitely off the table.

Bourgeois: the solution generates legal insecurity

The bourgeois majority argued that the law retrospectively intervenes in private contractual relationships. The solution now available would also create legal uncertainty and would not take into account the different levels of concern of individual companies.

“Private law matters must be resolved under private law,” said Pirmin Schwander (SVP / SZ). Christa Markwalder (FDP / BE) asked the tenants to reach an amicable agreement. Philipp Matthias Bregy (CVP / VS) noted that catering companies and other SMEs could soon be helped with the provision for difficult situations of the Covid Act.

A left minority recommended the adoption of the law. She described the template as vital to numerous companies, especially in the restaurant industry. The law provides little relief to battered SMEs, said Min Li Marti (SP / ZH). “We have to take the existential fears of entrepreneurs seriously,” said Florence Brenzikofer (Greens / BL).

Decided empty changes

The Federal Council’s proposal, which should have written the law against their will, stipulates that tenants and tenants who were affected by an official closure or severe restrictions in the spring only have to pay 40 percent of the rent for this period. . 60 percent must be assumed by the owners.

Before the general vote, the National Council made several changes to the bill. So he decided to give up tenants not 60, but only 50 percent of the rent owed. Nor should the law apply if the parties have already found a solution.

All these changes were ultimately void because the bill was ultimately rejected. Several left-wing speakers criticized the National Council Commission for having produced a practically new proposal, which it ultimately rejected. Baptiste Hurni (SP / NE) spoke of a “perversity”.

The law is also likely to run into difficulties in the Council of States. The preliminary advisory committee recommends 8 to 5 votes for no-show. The little camera will decide on Wednesday morning.