Category: Switzerland

With the conclusion of negotiations on the Bilateral Agreements III, Switzerland has reached a new milestone in its relations with the EU. The comprehensive package of agreements includes new agreements in the areas of electricity, food safety and health, as well as the updating of existing agreements. Particularly noteworthy is Switzerland’s readmission to the EU research programmes, a significant step for Switzerland as a research location.

At a panel discussion at the University of Zurich, organised by the Zurich Chamber of Commerce, leading representatives from politics, business and science debated the opportunities and risks of the new agreement.

Significance for Switzerland as a centre of research
In his opening speech, UZH Rector Michael Schaepman emphasised the central role of the EU for Swiss science. Integration into the European Research Area not only strengthens Switzerland’s excellent universities, but also facilitates international exchange and access to important technologies. “Especially in geopolitically uncertain times, a stable partnership with the EU is of crucial importance,” explained Schaepman.

Between free trade and EU membership
State Secretary Alexandre Fasel described the Bilaterals III as a happy medium between full membership of the EU and a pure free trade agreement. By integrating the institutional issues into the individual agreements, it had been possible to find a Swiss solution. EU law would only be adopted in the contractually regulated areas, whereby Switzerland would have legal protection mechanisms such as a court of arbitration.

Economic benefits vs. sovereignty concerns
The discussion revealed different perspectives on the agreement. For the economy, the connection to the European single market is essential. Balz Hösly from the Zurich Chamber of Commerce emphasised that small and medium-sized companies in particular are dependent on being able to use the EU market without trade barriers.

Critics such as Magdalena Martullo-Blocher, on the other hand, warned of increasing regulation and a loss of Swiss sovereignty. She spoke of a “treaty of subjugation” and called for a stronger focus on global free trade agreements.

Professor Stefanie Walter emphasised that although the Swiss population is sceptical about the EU, the bilateral agreements enjoy broad support as a pragmatic solution.

A social and political balancing act
In addition to economic and legal aspects, social values were also discussed. Silvan Wildhaber, CEO of Filtex AG, spoke out in favour of the bilateral agreements for humanistic reasons: “We should work together as friendly neighbours in Europe.” Balz Halter, on the other hand, rejected the agreement on civic grounds, as it would mean a loss of sovereignty for Switzerland.

The panel discussion made it clear that the Bilaterals III are one of the key political decisions for the coming years. While some see economic stability and political pragmatism in them, others warn against becoming too dependent on the EU. The final decision now lies with the Swiss people.

On Monday, the National Council voted 123 to 64 with two abstentions in favour of an amendment to the Civil Code that gives property owners more options in dealing with squatters. The key point of the new regulation is the extension of the right to self-help. In future, homeowners will not only be allowed to remove squatters immediately after the start of a squat, but also within a “reasonable period” after becoming aware of the squat. Provided that state assistance is not available in time. This change is intended to give owners more flexibility to protect their property.

The Federal Council had originally proposed a more restrictive approach. Self-help should only be permitted if the owner could not have recognised the occupation earlier. However, the National Council overruled this proposal and instead strengthened the rights of owners. Justice Minister Beat Jans warned in vain against undermining the state’s monopoly on the use of force. His appeals for exceptions to this monopoly to be handled restrictively went unheard.

Criticism from the left: “Superfluous tightening“
The left and the Green Liberals rejected the bill and described it as unnecessary. During the debate, Christian Dandrès warned of the long-term consequences of the new regulation: “This undermines the state’s monopoly on the use of force and sets a dangerous precedent.” Opponents argued that the existing laws were sufficient and that there were only a few cases anyway. Jacqueline Badran criticised the fact that decades of proven practice in cities were being overridden.

However, the centre-right majority in the National Council took a different view. They emphasised that the property rights of homeowners were currently inadequately protected. The SVP in particular sharply criticised left-green city governments, accusing them of being too lax in their treatment of squatters. The new regulation should not only strengthen the rights of owners, but also make the authorities more accountable. In future, they will have to provide assistance in good time and court injunctions against squatters are to be simplified. Especially in cases where the identity of the squatters is unknown.

Future-orientated or superfluous?
The change in the law is a further step in a long-standing debate on how to deal with squatters. While those in favour of the new regulation see it as forward-looking and necessary to protect property rights, opponents see it as a superfluous tightening of the law that creates more problems than it solves. The bill now goes to the Council of States, where the discussions are likely to be just as heated.

One thing is clear: the question of how much personal responsibility should be granted to property owners in the fight against squatters remains a polarising issue. The decision of the Council of States will show whether Switzerland will take a more restrictive course in future – or whether the critics are right and the existing regulations are sufficient.