Reminder: tomorrow morning at 9.30, the #BVerfG will publish its decision on the legality of the #Mietendeckel, a policy that froze rents for over 1.5 million apartments in Berlin since February 2020, on its website 🧨
The #BVerfG declared the Berlin rent cap "null and void". 
As expected, the main argumentation of the #BVerfG concerns the question of Länder competence. #Mietendeckel
To the extent that federal and Länder laws are about the same subject matter, Federal law takes precedence. In this case, tenancies are covered by the Federal Civil Code of ... 1900 (!).
The claim that the Federal government has already passed 4 laws to "ensure a balance between the interests of landlords and tenants" is just adding insult to injury. #BVerfG #Mietendeckel
Those who had used the #Mietendeckel to reduce their rent will now be asked to pay the difference. If they did not save that money, they can be legally kicked out. That's what a "balance of interests" means. #BVerfG #Mietendeckel
Legally speaking, a key contentious part of the #BVerfG decision against the #Mietendeckel concerns the public/private distinction. That's because the #BVerfG argues that the #Mietendeckel is a Civil Law issue because it concerns the private "frei-finanzierte" sector. >>
>> But this is not so straightforward. As Tim Wihl argues here, there is no such thing as a "frei-finanzierte" private sector, as the state defines the framework within which markets (including the housing one) work. verfassungsblog.de/zur-nichtigkei…
The implication here is that prices should be considered as part of the "housing" law (not the tenancy, i.e. civil law) which is part of Länder competence.
So maybe there is a case to be made that the underlying logic of today's decision has to do with an #ordoliberal position that rejects state interference with the price system as not "Marktkonform". #BVerfG #Mietendeckel
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
