On November 24, voters will address two tenancy law amendments, one regarding landlord termination conditions for personal use of properties. Current laws allow ordinary terminations under usual notice periods, but tenants can contest terminations deemed contrary to good faith. The proposed changes simplify requirements for landlords, shifting from “urgent” to “significant” personal needs for extraordinary terminations. While meant to address lengthy legal processes, both tenant and landlord representatives express concerns over potential abuses and ineffective safeguards against wrongful terminations.
On November 24, citizens will cast their votes on two significant amendments related to tenancy law. One of these amendments specifically concerns landlords’ options for terminating leases if they need the premises for themselves.
To grasp the implications of this amendment, it’s essential to understand the current regulations. For open-ended lease agreements, landlords are generally permitted to terminate the lease at any point unless specified otherwise in the contract. However, tenants can contest these terminations based on certain conditions. The Federal Supreme Court recognizes that a termination may be challenged if it contradicts the principles of good faith, particularly in instances where the landlord’s intent appears to be harassment.
Urgent Personal Use Regulations
Current law stipulates a minimum notice period of three months for residential leases and six months for commercial leases. Canons may differ across cantons, with Zurich’s customary termination dates being March 31 and September 30.
Landlords typically cite their personal need for a property as a legitimate reason for lease termination. The law also includes special provisions for three specific situations: when a property is sold, during ongoing disputes between landlords and tenants, and when a tenant applies to extend their lease following a termination. Upon a property sale, new owners can end leases within the standard notice period, even if the lease contains different terms, while still being liable for any damages caused by the termination.
Terminations amid tenant legal proceedings are generally viewed as abusive. This judgment holds for three years post a tenant’s legal success. Nevertheless, if a landlord has a pressing requirement for the property, these grounds may no longer apply. Furthermore, authorities must consider landlords’ needs and their urgency during tenant applications for lease extensions.
The proposed amendment alters existing provisions by changing the necessity for landlords to demonstrate their needs as “urgent” to merely requiring them to be “significant” and “current,” assessed from an objective standpoint. This shift aims to ease the criteria for lease termination, though the full implications will ultimately be determined by the courts. Historically, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that landlords must prove that it’s unreasonable to expect tenants to continue occupying the property.
This proposal stems from a 2018 parliamentary initiative aiming to expedite terminations driven by urgent personal needs. The rationale pointed out that legal proceedings for such terminations could extend for months or even years, rendering them incompatible with the notion of urgent personal necessity.
Concerns Over Offense and Delay
Monika Sommer, representing the homeowners’ association, highlights a case where an elderly couple waited years to occupy their own home as a serious issue. However, she acknowledges that the proposed amendment may not effectively alleviate such delays, noting, “The homeowners’ association feels only moderately satisfied with this change, as it doesn’t address the lengthy legal processes if tenants utilize their appeals.”
Sommer, who serves as a landlord representative on the Zurich district arbitration board, indicates that while troublesome scenarios linked to urgent personal use are rare, they can be significantly distressing for those involved.
Counterclaims from Tenants
The tenant perspective raises concerns about landlords falsely claiming urgent needs to either re-rent properties at higher rates or displace less desirable tenants. Lawyer Sarah Brutschin, a long-time tenant representative, asserts that she has encountered numerous instances of suspicions surrounding retaliatory terminations, prompting landlords to claim personal needs during or immediately following disputes.
Brutschin estimates, “Over the past 25 years, I’ve observed around 30 to 40 cases where a property was rented again post-termination under questionable premises.” If courts endorse an eviction for personal use, renters finding out the legitimate reasoning is often left with limited recourse, as legal analyses suggest damage claims are unlikely to succeed.
Understanding the “Mini-Revision”
Opponents, particularly from tenant organizations, argue that these amendments would empower landlords to exploit tenancy laws more readily by falsely claiming personal need for their properties. “This revision does not alter the rules for ordinary terminations based on personal use,” Sommer emphasizes. “It solely affects extraordinary terminations concerning urgent (or as redefined, significant/current) needs.”
What tangible changes might the mini-revision bring? A member of parliament from the supporting camp illustrated the semantic difference between “urgent” and “current/important” needs using a medical analogy: a heart attack is urgent, whereas chest pressure could represent a current need.
What types of terminations might become permissible by this revision that were previously disallowed? Sommer illustrates a scenario in which a landlord could experience financial loss if they don’t occupy their unit, suggesting such a situation would now be deemed reasonable.