Urgent own use in 'old' youth contracts

On August 21, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on a temporary rental agreement for youth housing(ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:3031). Since July 1, 2016, the Lease Market Transition Act 2015 has entered into force. In short, this law makes it easier for landlords to conclude temporary rental agreements for certain target groups, such as the target group "young people. If the tenant no longer falls under the relevant target group, the landlord can terminate the lease on the grounds of 'urgent own use'. This ruling concerns a youth contract from before July 1, 2016, and the question of whether the landlord can terminate the youth contract on the grounds of urgent own use.

Youth housing experiment

In response to the pressure on the housing market and the shortage of youth housing, the City of Amsterdam launched an experiment in 2006 in cooperation with housing corporations. Under this experiment, housing corporations make low-cost housing available to young people between the ages of 18 and 23. The young people can rent these homes until they no longer belong to the target group of "young people. Six months after reaching the age of 26, the ''older young person'' must leave the house, so that the house can be rented to a ''real young person'' again. In this way, the City of Amsterdam and housing corporations want to help young people find housing.

In the case in question, Woningstichting Eigen Haard ("Eigen Haard") and the tenant entered into a youth contract as part of this experiment. According to the lease, the tenant was to deliver the house on September 30, 2015. At that time, the tenant is 26.5 years old. However, the tenant refused to deliver the house on this date and invoked rent protection. Eigen Haard takes the position (among others) that it urgently needs the home in order to rent it to a young person.

Rent protection?

Eigen Haard claimed eviction. The subdistrict court ruled that the tenant was right to invoke rent protection and rejected the eviction claim. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal had a different opinion. The court ruled that the reliance on rent protection was unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. This is because the tenant knew that the delivery of the house after reaching the age of 26.5 years was an indispensable part of the youth housing experiment.

Urgent own use

In addition, the court of appeal ruled that the interest of being able to house special vulnerable groups, such as young people, should be regarded as the landlord's own interest as a housing corporation. The fact that Eigen Haard has made hundreds of its homes available as youth housing as part of the experiment shows that Eigen Haard attracts this interest as its own. It also has a sufficiently urgent interest in being able to continue using this residence for this purpose, so that it does not have to use a "regular" residence from its stock. In addition, the court finds that sufficient other suitable housing is available to the tenant. The court of appeal ruled that for this 'suitable housing', homes outside 'the ring' should also be considered (even if the tenant is a native of Amsterdam). The Court of Appeal concluded that all requirements for a claim of 'urgent own use' had been met. Therefore, Eigen Haard cannot be expected to continue the lease any longer.

"Old" youth makes way

The "old" young person is thus ruled against and must vacate the property to make way for a new young person. This case makes it clear that urgent own use by the landlord can also apply with respect to youth contracts entered into before July 1, 2016. Perhaps Emile Ratelband's view would have resulted in a more favorable ruling for the tenant.