Tenancy law in Switzerland is a highly developed area of law, reflecting the importance of housing in people’s daily lives. With over 60% of the population living in rented accommodation, the rules governing the termination of lease contracts represent a major issue for social stability. Swiss lawmakers have put in place a sophisticated regulatory framework designed to balance the interests of landlords and the protection of tenants. This system is based primarily on the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) and the Federal Act on Residential and Commercial Leases (OBLF). The legal provisions lay down strict conditions for terminating a rental contract, while at the same time providing for dispute mechanisms available to tenants who consider their notice to be unfair or contrary to the rules of good faith.
The Swiss legal system strictly regulates the termination of residential and commercial leases through specific provisions in the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), principally articles 266 to 273c. These rules form the legal foundation on which the entire termination mechanism rests.
Swiss law distinguishes between two main types of lease: fixed-term and open-ended. In the case of fixed-term contracts, the lease terminates automatically on the agreed expiry date, without the need for formal termination, unless a tacit renewal clause has been included. On the other hand, open-ended contracts require explicit termination within specific terms and deadlines.
The standard notice periods are set out in article 266c of the Swiss Code of Obligations for residential property and article 266d of the Swiss Code of Obligations for commercial property. For residential property, the standard period is three months, while for commercial premises it is six months. These deadlines generally coincide with the usual local terms, often March 31, June 30, September 30 or December 31.
The validity of a termination under Swiss law is conditional on compliance with strict formal rules. According to article 266l of the Swiss Code of Obligations, notice of termination must be given in writing. Both parties must use an official form approved by the canton for residential lease terminations. This formal requirement constitutes a significant protection for the tenant, as failure to comply will render the notice null and void.
The official form must contain precise information:
The lessor is not obliged to justify his decision to terminate the lease in the official form. However, in the event of a subsequent dispute, he will have to justify that the notice does not contravene the rules of good faith. This peculiarity of Swiss law illustrates the search for a balance between the landlord’s contractual freedom and the tenant’s protection against wrongful termination.
Swiss law provides for a number of situations in which extraordinary termination is possible, with shortened notice periods. Article 266g of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) authorizes either party to terminate the contract for just cause that renders the continuation of the lease unbearable. The case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court interprets this notion restrictively, requiring serious and unforeseeable circumstances.
Other specific cases include termination for default by the tenant (art. 257d CO), allowing the landlord to terminate with 30 days’ notice after unsuccessful formal notice, or termination for breach of the duty of care and consideration towards neighbors (art. 257f CO), with a similar notice period after written warning.
Swiss tenancy law is characterized by an elaborate system of protection against unfair termination, centred around article 271 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. This fundamental provision states that a notice of termination is voidable when it contravenes the rules of good faith. This general principle is embodied in a series of typical situations considered to be unfair.
Article 271a CO sets out a non-exhaustive list of cases in which termination is presumed to be unfair. These include termination due to the tenant’s exercise of a right under the lease, such as contesting a rent increase. Particularly protected are terminations occurring during conciliation or court proceedings relating to the lease, or within three years of the end of such proceedings if the lessor has largely succumbed or abandoned his action.
The jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has progressively enriched the notion of abusive termination by identifying other problematic situations. For example, a termination based on a spurious reason or one that does not correspond to the lessor’s true intention is generally considered abusive. Similarly, a termination motivated by a desire to harm or impose a unilateral modification of the contract unfavorable to the tenant will be voidable.
Two frequent reasons for termination deserve particular attention: the landlord’s own needs and renovation work. These situations illustrate perfectly the tension between the legitimate interests of the landlord and the protection of the tenant.
Dismissal for personal needs is not in itself abusive when the lessor demonstrates a serious, concrete and present interest in using the property himself, or in using it for his close relatives or allies. However, the courts carefully examine the proportionality of the measure, in particular by considering :
With regard to renovation work, case law recognizes that a major renovation project justifying evacuation of the premises may constitute a valid reason for termination. Nevertheless, the notice will be considered abusive if the work could reasonably be carried out without terminating the lease, or if the lessor has not offered the lessee reinstatement of the premises after the work, where this is objectively possible.
Tenants who have grounds to contest a termination must act promptly. Article 273 of the Swiss Code of Obligations sets a deadline of 30 days following receipt of the notice to refer the dispute to the conciliation authority. This compulsory preliminary procedure is designed to enable the dispute to be resolved amicably.
There are two distinct aspects to the dispute:
These two requests can be made simultaneously or successively. If conciliation fails, the authority issues an authorization to proceed, enabling the tenant to bring the matter before the competent court within 30 days. Throughout the procedure, the lease continues under the same conditions, offering temporary security to the tenant.
Swiss tenancy law has a distinctive feature in the form of the lease extension. This mechanism, set out in articles 272 to 272d of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), allows the tenant to obtain additional time before having to vacate the premises, even when the termination is valid in substance. This is a median solution which recognizes the validity of the notice while allowing the tenant time to adapt.
Lease extensions can be granted for a maximum of four years for residential premises and six years for commercial premises. In practice, courts rarely grant the maximum durations, preferring a graduated approach based on specific circumstances. Case law has established that the first extension rarely exceeds two years for a dwelling.
To determine whether and for how long an extension should be granted, the authorities weigh up the interests involved. Article 272 para. 2 CO lists the criteria to be taken into consideration:
The lease extension maintains all the original contractual conditions, including the rent. However, article 272c of the Swiss Code of Obligations allows the lessor to request an adjustment of conditions during the extension period, in particular to bring the rent into line with market conditions.
A fundamental feature of the extension is its definitive nature. The notice of termination remains valid and takes effect on expiry of the extension period, without the need for a new termination. However, the tenant retains the right to terminate the lease early, within the legal terms and deadlines, if he or she finds alternative accommodation before the extension expires.
Certain situations exclude or severely limit the possibility of obtaining an extension. Article 272a of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) stipulates the following:
These exclusions reflect the legislator’s intention not to protect the tenant whose behavior is at the root of the termination. They underline the equitable dimension of the extension mechanism, which aims to mitigate the consequences of a termination for a tenant acting in good faith.
Swiss tenancy law incorporates social considerations by granting greater protection to certain particularly vulnerable categories of tenant. These additional protections are reflected both in the assessment of the abusive nature of a notice to quit and in the criteria for granting an extension.
The tenant’s advanced age is a determining factor in the judicial assessment. Jurisprudence recognizes that a move can be a particularly difficult ordeal for an elderly person, especially if he or she has occupied the dwelling for many years. Without setting a precise age threshold, the courts tend to give greater consideration to the situation of tenants over retirement age.
Similarly, the state of health of the tenant or a family member living in the dwelling may justify enhanced protection. The courts take into account chronic pathologies, disabilities or conditions requiring residential stability for medical reasons. A medical certificate detailing the potential consequences of a move on health may prove decisive.
The presence of children in the home, particularly if they are of school age, is a significant factor in weighing up interests. The courts consider the impact of a change of school and social environment on a child’s development. Proximity to the school, integration into the neighborhood and extracurricular activities are all assessed in concrete terms.
The tenant’s social roots in the neighborhood can also be taken into account, particularly for the elderly or those with reduced mobility. Proximity to essential services (shops, medical services, public transport) and the existence of a local support network (family, friends, neighbors) are relevant factors.
These social considerations are expressed through several legal mechanisms:
Swiss law contains specific provisions to protect the tenant’s spouse or registered partner. Article 266m of the Swiss Code of Obligations requires separate notice of termination to be given to the tenant and his/her spouse. Failure to comply with this formality renders the notice null and void, offering significant procedural protection.
In addition, article 266n of the Swiss Code of Obligations recognizes the right of the non-signatory spouse to contest the notice of termination or request an extension, irrespective of the wishes of the principal tenant. This provision is designed to protect the economically weaker spouse from the consequences of an unwanted termination.
In the event of the tenant’s death, article 270 CO stipulates that the lease is not automatically terminated. The heirs can take over the contract, with the possibility of extraordinary termination subject to legal notice. If the deceased tenant was living in a joint household with relatives, the latter may take over the lease under the same conditions, thus ensuring continuity of occupancy.
Swiss tenancy law is constantly evolving, influenced by the case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and occasional legislative amendments. Recent years have seen the emergence of several significant trends that are redefining the balance between landlords’ rights and tenants’ protection.
The increasing digitization of legal relations has raised questions about the validity of electronic terminations. While the law still requires written notification on an official form, recent case law has clarified the conditions under which certain electronic communications can be considered valid. Nevertheless, caution is still called for, and lessors generally prefer notification by registered mail to guarantee the formal validity of their acts.
There is also a growing focus on cancellations linked to energy-efficient building renovations. In the context of the ecological transition, many landlords are undertaking insulation work or installing more environmentally-friendly heating systems. The courts have had to develop specific case law to distinguish between genuinely necessary projects and pretexts aimed simply at getting rid of tenants paying moderate rents.
Despite the uniformity of federal law, there are marked differences in its application between cantons and regions. Urban cantons such as Geneva, Vaud and Zurich, where the housing market is particularly tight, tend to be more protective of tenants. In these cantons, the judicial authorities are more willing to grant lease extensions and are more restrictive in their interpretation of the grounds for termination invoked by landlords.
Conversely, in rural cantons where the rental market is more relaxed, local case law may be more favorable to landlords’ interests. These disparities are partly explained by objective differences in the real estate market, but also reflect varying political sensitivities.
Recent statistics reveal some interesting trends:
With the growing complexity of tenancy law, the assistance of legal professionals is often decisive in the outcome of disputes. Tenants’ associations play a key role in providing accessible legal advice and representing their members before conciliation authorities.
For complex cases or those involving high financial stakes, the services of a lawyer specialized in leasing law can prove decisive. A law firm familiar with the subtleties of lease law can offer an in-depth analysis of the validity of a notice to quit, identify the most relevant legal arguments and prepare an appropriate procedural strategy. This expertise is particularly valuable during preliminary negotiations with the landlord, where professional intervention can sometimes help avoid lengthy and costly legal proceedings.
Current trends show that tenants who benefit from legal advice as soon as the notice of termination is received generally achieve better results, whether in terms of cancellation of the notice, length of extension or negotiated financial terms of departure. In particular, early intervention by a specialist helps to avoid procedural errors, such as missed deadlines for objections, which can be fatal to the tenant’s rights.
Tenant protection in Switzerland with regard to lease termination illustrates the delicate balance between guaranteeing the right to property and recognizing housing as a fundamental need. This complex system, the fruit of a long evolution in legislation and case law, continues to adapt to contemporary socio-economic realities, offering one of the highest levels of protection in Europe while preserving the legitimate interests of landlords.
An initial consultation
from 60 min to CHF 220.00
Take stock of your situation with a specialist lawyer.
Would you just like to make an appointment to ask a few questions?
Not sure what to do?
Is your situation unclear?
Opt for an initial consultation with a lawyer.
You will then decide whether you wish to proceed, and our lawyers will give you the cost of the procedure according to your case. Appointments can be made in person or by videoconference.
by calling our secretariat or filling in the form below.
Appointments in person or by videoconference.
© All rights reserved – Reproduction prohibited – 2025 – Legal Notice