Asloca has collected the 140,000 signatures required and tabled a federal popular initiative ‘Yes to protection against excessive rents (rent initiative)’ on 23 June 2026. According to Asloca’s press release[1], ‘rents have risen by 25 per cent in recent years. This is because excessive rents are not subject to any controls […] Today, the entire burden of responsibility falls on tenants. They must defend themselves individually, whilst many are afraid of falling out with their letting agent, or even of losing their home”.
Without taking a position on the merits of this initiative, this article provides a brief overview of the regulatory measures currently in place in the canton of Vaud.
The tenancy agreement – and it is worth recalling this – is a contract governed by private law. The parties are therefore free to enter into it or not. One of the key features of the tenancy agreement, however, is that contractual freedom is not absolute, in the sense that tenants have remedies available to them should they wish to challenge their rent. The Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) contains, in Chapter II of the section devoted to tenancy agreements, a chapter entitled ‘Protection against excessive rents or other unreasonable claims by the landlord in respect of residential and commercial tenancies”.
The first course of action available to the tenant is to challenge the initial rent. Indeed, under Article 270 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), ‘where the tenant considers that the amount of the initial rent is excessive within the meaning of Articles 269 and 269a, they may challenge it before the conciliation authority within 30 days of taking possession of the property and request a reduction’ if certain conditions are met.
The second option available to them is to challenge the rent during the term of the tenancy. Under Article 270a of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), ‘the tenant may challenge the amount of the rent and request a reduction for the next notice period if they have reason to believe that the let property is yielding an excessive return to the landlord within the meaning of Articles 269 and 269a, due to a significant change in the basis of calculation, resulting in particular from a reduction in costs.
Another option: if the landlord increases the rent during the term of the tenancy, a tenant who considers the increase to be unreasonable may challenge it before the conciliation authority within 30 days of receiving notice of the increase, pursuant to Article 270b of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO).
It is indeed the tenants who has the ‘responsibility’ to take action to assert their ‘rights’. If they do so, they are protected against termination of the tenancy agreement in the sense that they will be able to challenge it and demonstrate that the termination constitutes retaliatory eviction. The tenants will therefore not lose their home simply because they have contested the rent.
Another distinctive feature of private-law tenancy agreements is that there is state control over rents. This control is exercised, on the one hand, by the judicial authorities in the event of a dispute and legal action by the tenant, but also by the administrative authorities.
This state control is exercised indirectly through the use of standard forms. According to Article 270(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), ‘in the event of a housing shortage, the cantons may make it compulsory, throughout all or part of their territory, to use the standard form referred to in Article 269d for the conclusion of any new tenancy agreement’. Such a form has been introduced, in particular, in the canton of Vaud.
In the canton of Vaud, this control is also exercised on the basis of the Vaud Law on the Preservation and Promotion of the Housing Stock (LPPPL). The aim of this Act is to tackle the housing shortage and support the construction of new housing that meets the needs of the population. It enables the canton and the municipalities to promote four types of public-interest housing (LUP): low-rent housing built or renovated with or without state subsidies; affordable housing; adapted housing with support services, built with or without cantonal subsidies; and student accommodation.
Without going into detail here, “Public housing status enables the developer to comply with and benefit from the land-use planning measures put in place by local authorities (quota zones and floor area bonuses provided for in regulations and land-use plans), as well as the various cantonal support schemes available (loans, guarantees, grants (housing support)). […] Local authorities can promote and encourage the construction of public housing (LUP) within their boundaries by using two land-use planning measures:
• setting LUP quotas in new land-use plans;
• granting building incentives to owners who construct LUP within existing building zones (not subject to quotas);
• the integration of LUP into a spatial planning project (LUP data sheet)
The LPPPL also allows them, in the event of a shortage and subject to certain conditions, to exercise a right of pre-emption to acquire a plot of land for the purpose of building public-interest housing”[2].
Another means of state control is rent control from the first letting following completion of works and restrictions on the right to dispose of the property.
Indeed, in the canton of Vaud, again in accordance with the LPPPL, any owner who wishes to, or is required to, carry out major demolition, conversion or renovation work on rented accommodation must submit an application for authorisation to the local authority where the building is situated, provided that the building falls within the scope of this Act.
According to Article 6 of the LPPPL, ‘The developer or their representative is obliged to inform tenants in advance and in writing, and to consult them, whenever they intend to carry out demolition, conversion or renovation works on an existing building. They must outline their plans to the tenants and inform them of the likely impact on their rents. They must be given a period of at least thirty days to submit their comments and suggestions’.
Under Article 14 of the same Act, ‘the department may limit the impact of the costs of demolition, conversion or renovation works on rental income.
It may make the authorisation subject to a measure to control rental income for a maximum period of five years from the date on which the dwellings replacing those demolished, converted, renovated or put to uses other than residential purposes are let.
In the event of a severe shortage within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 4, the duration of the control may be extended to a maximum of ten years.
It may make the sale of the building subject to authorisation until the works have been completed and may require the submission of a statement of account”.
Administrative and criminal penalties are provided for, in particular if the conditions attached to the granting of the licence are not complied with (Art. 26 LPPPL).
Without commenting on the merits of the Asloca’s initiative, there are therefore already means of controlling rents. There are indeed legal remedies which, admittedly, must be pursued by tenants, but there are also measures available to the cantons and municipal authorities via the LPPPL in the canton of Vaud.
[1] https://www.asloca.ch/actualites/asloca-a-depose-initiative-loyers
[2] https://www.vd.ch/territoire-et-construction/logement/logements-dutilite-publique-lup-promotion-du-parc-locatif