The Jean Monnet Seminar on Regulating Short-Term Rentals: The Interplay Between Housing Challenges and Market Freedoms
Publish date: sreda, 1. oktober 2025 | Expiration date: četrtek, 31. december 2099
Jean Monnet Seminar Summary
Regulating Short-Term Rentals: The Interplay Between Housing Challenges and Market Freedoms
Date: Monday, 29 September 2025 • Format: Online (MS Teams)
Overview. The seminar examined how EU law, national policy, and local practice intersect in regulating short-term rentals (STR). Speakers from academia, EU institutions, and city government discussed legal constraints (Services Directive, Article 16 Charter), policy design, and on-the-ground implementation. Two cross-cutting themes dominated: proportionality (targeted, evidence-based restrictions) and data (registration, interoperability, and platform cooperation as prerequisites for enforceable, proportionate rules).
Opening (Dr Janja Hojnik, Faculty of Law, University of Maribor). Framed the core trade-offs—public interest vs. entrepreneurship, tourism vs. housing affordability, right to a home vs. free movement—set the seminar’s questions and objectives.
Slovenian framework (Dubravka Kalin, Director General for Tourism, Ministry of the Economy, Tourism and Sport). Presented the newly adopted Hospitality Act as the outcome of three decades of debate. The Act adds conditions and simplifications, introduces time limits and a risk-based classification of municipalities, and will lean more on digitalisation of STR. Faculty of Economics studies (Airbnb/Vrbo) were cited to show rapid STR growth outpacing safeguards for other interests.
Fundamental freedoms (Tim Horvat, Lawyer at the Court of Justice of the EU). Emphasised that housing rules are business regulations subject to CJEU scrutiny under Article 16 of the Charter. Reviewed key case law (including Alemo-Herron and AEON Nepremičnine) and stressed the centrality of the proportionality test.
EU law & policy landscape (Živa Šuta, Faculty of Law, University of Maribor). Asked whether, to what extent, and how the EU should engage on housing. Highlighted the rising role of EU law and the CJEU, again underscoring proportionality as the analytic lens.
Commission perspective (Paolo Lavaggi, European Commission—DG Internal Market). Outlined the path to the STR Regulation, the importance of subsidiarity and data protection, and practical benefits for hosts and guests. Stressed that better data flows enable cities to design proportionate, locally tailored measures.
Who is the “host”? (Dr Petra Weingerl, Faculty of Law, University of Maribor). Explained why the private/professional boundary matters for jurisdiction, applicable law, and substance; discussed Schrems, Kamenova, Würth Automotive, and Zabiton.
Services Directive & permits (Dr Bert Keirsbilck, Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Leuven). Situated STR case law (Airbnb, Cali Apartments, pending Smartflats). Highlighted proportionality elements and the competence divide (town-planning exclusions). Anticipated a stricter Court stance in Smartflats.
National practice—Croatia (Dr Gojko Bežovan, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb). Discussed balancing tourism growth with affordability in Croatia (summary remarks).
Slovenian housing private law (Dr Ana Vlahek, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana). Reviewed general Housing Act provisions potentially relevant to STR (Arts. 29, 14), noting uncertainty in their application, and practical difficulties with owner consents.
City practice—Amsterdam (Dr Dion Kramer, Faculty of Law, Vrije University Amsterdam). Traced a decade of iterative regulation: shifting day caps, permits, notifications, targeted bans, subsequent annulments for disproportionality, and today’s “built-in proportionality test.” Stressed the twin layers of upstream (DSA, e-Commerce) and downstream (Services Directive) rules. New 2026 limits (e.g., 15 days in specific districts) rest on extensive studies.
City practice—Vienna (Mag. Peter Wieser, City of Vienna). Showcased Vienna’s strong public-housing model and three operating principles: treat analogue and digital equally; require platform cooperation; no data = no enforcement. Current regime includes a 90-day cap and a ban on subletting public housing; the city welcomes the STR Regulation. pf.um.si
Discussion highlights. Participants compared how consents are obtained, the transferability of Amsterdam’s model, the boundary between private contracts and public enforcement, and whether restrictions measurably improve affordability. Subsidiarity and local proportionality assessments featured prominently, as did references to SoU 2025 remarks and the lack of a uniform statutory STR definition.
Key takeaways.
- Proportionality. STR rules must be targeted (area- and problem-specific), necessary, and the least-restrictive means to achieve legitimate housing objectives—backed by evidence and revisable in light of outcomes.
- Data. Effective governance hinges on robust registration, interoperable identifiers, and platform data-sharing; without reliable data, enforcement falters and proportionality cannot be demonstrated.
Next steps. Continued dialogue among legislators, the Commission, cities, and platforms; systematic monitoring of housing indicators; and alignment of local measures with EU.
