Advanced

Ägarlägenheter - en ny boendeform i Sverige

Lokrantz Bernitz, Hampus LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Äganderätt är den mest långtgående civilrättsliga förfoganderätten till egendom som kan innehas. Före den 1 maj 2009 har det inte varit möjligt i Sverige att inneha enskild lägenhet med direkt äganderätt trots att detta utgör den vanligaste ägarformen för lägenheter i flertalet EU-medlemsstater. Motståndet mot ägarlägenhetsinstitutet har såväl varit juridiskt som bostadspolitiskt till sin karaktär. Ur ett historiskt perspektiv har ägarlägenhetsinstitutet bl.a. ansetts främmande för den svenska fastighetsrättsliga regleringen och fokus har legat på det kooperativa inslaget i boendet i flerbostadshus, vilket kom särskilt till uttryck genom bostadsrättsinstitutets bildande på 1930-talet. Utvecklingen har dock gått dithän att det hos många... (More)
Äganderätt är den mest långtgående civilrättsliga förfoganderätten till egendom som kan innehas. Före den 1 maj 2009 har det inte varit möjligt i Sverige att inneha enskild lägenhet med direkt äganderätt trots att detta utgör den vanligaste ägarformen för lägenheter i flertalet EU-medlemsstater. Motståndet mot ägarlägenhetsinstitutet har såväl varit juridiskt som bostadspolitiskt till sin karaktär. Ur ett historiskt perspektiv har ägarlägenhetsinstitutet bl.a. ansetts främmande för den svenska fastighetsrättsliga regleringen och fokus har legat på det kooperativa inslaget i boendet i flerbostadshus, vilket kom särskilt till uttryck genom bostadsrättsinstitutets bildande på 1930-talet. Utvecklingen har dock gått dithän att det hos många bostadsrättsföreningar finns en praxis som påminner om ägarlägenhetsinstitutet vilket pekar på att denna boendeform är såväl efterfrågad som behövlig.

Grundläggande för den svenska ägarlägenheten är att den, liksom i många andra länder, bygger på en modell baserad på direkt äganderätt. Till detta hör att ägarlägenheten utgör en tredimensionell fastighet av särskilt slag, s.k. ägarlägenhetsfastighet. En ägarlägenhet utgör således, till skillnad mot bostadsrätten, fast egendom som avgränsas såväl horisontellt som vertikalt och har därmed en konstruktion likt andra fastigheter. Rent lagtekniskt genomfördes introduktionen av ägarlägenhetsinstitutet inom ramen för gällande regleringar för fastigheter, vilket innebär att dessa regler blir tillämpliga om inget annat anges. Därför tillämpas de allmänna reglerna för t.ex. fastighetsbildning vid sidan av de för ägarlägenhetsfastigheter mer specifika reglerna.

Fastighetsbildning av ägarlägenhetsfastigheter begränsas huvudsakligen till nyproduktion och en ägarlägenhetsfastighet är endast avsedd att innehålla en enda bostadslägenhet och får endast bildas om den kommer att ingå i en sammanhållen enhet om minst tre sådana lägenheter. Samverkan mellan ägarlägenhetsfastigheterna tillgodoses i första hand genom inrättandet av gemenskapsanläggningar och det föreligger ett krav på föreningsförvaltning, vilket sker genom bildandet av en samfällighetsförening. Grannelagsrättsliga frågor löses inom ramen för de allmänna civil- och offentligrättsliga regleringarna, men det finns även vissa kompletterande regler rörande störningar och vissa ordningsregler kan meddelas av samfälligheten.

Ägaren av en ägarlägenhet har en rättslig förfoganderätt som liknar andra fastighetsägares och följaktligen har ägaren t.ex. en oinskränkt rätt att upplåta eller överlåta lägenheten. I fråga om uthyrning av lägenheten aktualiseras 12 kap JB på samma sätt som gäller vid uthyrning av ett en- eller tvåfamiljshus. Framförallt på grund av ägarens rättsliga förfoganderätt över sin lägenhet i detta hänseende föreligger det praktiska skillnader mellan ägarlägenhetsinstitutet och bostadsrättsinstitutet och grunden för detta är de skilda konstruktionerna av äganderätten, direkt respektive indirekt.

Motståndare mot ägarlägenhetsinstitutet menar bl.a. att bostadsrätten redan utgör en fullt fungerande boendeform samt att institutet ökar risken för en uppsplittring i boendebeståndet och leder till en ökad segregation och spekulation på boendemarknaden. Förespråkare av ägarlägenhetsinstitutet menar å andra sidan bl.a. att boendeformen innebär en ökad valfrihet för förvärvaren av en lägenhet i ett flerbostadshus vars inflytande står i proportion med den risk ett förvärv faktiskt innebär. Eftersom många bostadsrätter påminner om ägarlägenheter, vilket bl.a. tar sig uttryck i att många bostadsrättsföreningar är generösa med andrahandsuthyrning, kan ägarlägenhetsinstitutet minska urholkningen av bostadsrättsinstitutet och således bidra till att denna boendeform kan återgå till sin ursprungliga karaktär, vilket också kan säkerställa bostadsrättens framtid såsom en kooperativ boendeform.

Ägarlägenhetsinstitutet kan också öppna upp för en privat hyresmarknad, likt den som finns i många andra europeiska länder, och därmed bidra till en ökad tillgång på lägenheter att hyra vilket skulle kunna bidra till en mer diversifierad hyresmarknad. Ägarlägenhetsinstitutets genomslag är dock helt beroende av hur många ägarlägenheter som faktiskt bildas. Ett år efter reformen har färre ägarlägenheter bildats än beräknat, vilket dock kan höra samman med den rådande konjunkturen samt den allmänna osäkerhet som kan upplevas av att bygga lägenheter med en för Sverige oprövad ägarform. Det kan dock inte uteslutas att oklarheter i regelverket bl.a. vad avser ansvarsfördelningen för underhåll av den byggnad vari ägarlägenhetsfastigheterna är belägna gör att låneinstituten är ovilliga att tillhandahålla finansiering. Det kan i framtiden även visa sig vara nödvändigt att tillåta ombildning av bostadsrätter till ägarlägenheter för att säkerställa boendeformens genomslagskraft. Ägarlägenhetsinstitutets praktiska betydelse på den svenska boendemarknaden återstår således att se. (Less)
Abstract
Ownership to property is the most extensive legal right of disposal that can be possessed. Before the 1 of May 2009 it was not possible in Sweden to hold a direct ownership of a flat despite freehold flats (SW. “ägarlägenhet”) being the most common legal form of ownership to a flat in other EU-member states. The resistance towards this institute has been based on legal as well as political arguments. From a historical point of view the freehold flat institute has been viewed as incompatible with the Swedish system governing property law. The focus was instead put on the cooperative form of housing which was manifested in the formation of a new Swedish legal institute based on tenant-ownership (SW. “bostadsrättsinstitutet”) in the 1930’s... (More)
Ownership to property is the most extensive legal right of disposal that can be possessed. Before the 1 of May 2009 it was not possible in Sweden to hold a direct ownership of a flat despite freehold flats (SW. “ägarlägenhet”) being the most common legal form of ownership to a flat in other EU-member states. The resistance towards this institute has been based on legal as well as political arguments. From a historical point of view the freehold flat institute has been viewed as incompatible with the Swedish system governing property law. The focus was instead put on the cooperative form of housing which was manifested in the formation of a new Swedish legal institute based on tenant-ownership (SW. “bostadsrättsinstitutet”) in the 1930’s which is centered around a cooperative housing society (SW. “bostadsrättsförening”) . This institute has however moved in a direction towards the freehold flat institute which seems to point to this institute being both demanded as well as necessary.

The fundamental characteristic of the Swedish freehold flat institute is, as is the case also in many other countries, that it is based on a model of direct ownership. The freehold flat is, unlike the tenant-ownership, a three dimensional property which is defined horizontally as well as vertically. The introduction of this institute was made within the present system governing real property law and so ordinary real property-rules are applicable if nothing else is stated. The establishment of freehold flats is mainly limited to new built flats and in order for such a flat to be formed it is legally required to be part of a unit of at least two other such flats. In order to achieve an appropriate coexistence with the other freehold flat owners, the owner of the flat must belong to an association for the administration of the commonly owned property (SW. “samfällighetsförening”). The owner of the freehold flat has an extensive legal right to dispose of his property. For example, the owner’s right to rent out or sell the flat is unlimited. The renting out of the flat is subjected to regulations found in the 12th chapter of the land code (SW. “jordabalken”). It is primarily the owner’s extensive legal right to dispose of the property in this regard that distinguishes the institute from the tenant-ownership and this originates in the difference between direct and indirect ownership.

Some opponents of the freehold flat institute argue that the tenant-ownership is a sufficient form of ownership and that the freehold flat institute is therefore unnecessary. Opponents have also argued that the institute may lead to a more segregated and speculative real property market. The advocators of the institute argue, on the other hand, that the institute leads to an increase in the freedom of choice for property buyers and from a principle point of view also supplies a form of ownership which gives the buyer an influence which is in proportion to the risk such a commitment implies. The development of the tenant-ownership institute shows that it is often under a heavy influence from freehold flat ideas and so the introduction of a proper freehold flat institute would allow for the tenant-ownership institute to return back to its original cooperative form which could also secure the institute’s future existence. The freehold flat institute can also contribute to the development of a private renting market similar to that of other European countries which would increase the level of supply of flats to rent.

The practical impact of the freehold flat institute is however dependant of the number of flats constructed. One year after the introduction of the institute there are fewer such flats than originally was expected. However, this may depend on the current economic state of the market and a natural hesitation to a new legal form of flat-ownership. It may however also depend on unclear regulations, for example regarding the share of responsibility with regards to the maintenance of the house were the freehold flats are situated, and this could make the mortgage-institutes unwilling to supply appropriate finance. In the future it may also be shown necessary to allow for the transformation of tenant-ownership flats into freehold flats in order to ensure the extension of the latter. Thus, the practical implications of the freehold flat institute remain to be seen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lokrantz Bernitz, Hampus LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Freehold flats - a new model of legal ownership in Sweden
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Civilrätt (private law)
language
Swedish
id
1684394
date added to LUP
2010-10-18 11:13:50
date last changed
2010-10-25 14:08:28
@misc{1684394,
  abstract     = {Ownership to property is the most extensive legal right of disposal that can be possessed. Before the 1 of May 2009 it was not possible in Sweden to hold a direct ownership of a flat despite freehold flats  (SW. “ägarlägenhet”) being the most common legal form of ownership to a flat in other EU-member states. The resistance towards this institute has been based on legal as well as political arguments. From a historical point of view the freehold flat institute has been viewed as incompatible with the Swedish system governing property law. The focus was instead put on the cooperative form of housing which was manifested in the formation of a new Swedish legal institute based on tenant-ownership  (SW. “bostadsrättsinstitutet”) in the 1930’s which is centered around a cooperative housing society (SW. “bostadsrättsförening”) . This institute has however moved in a direction towards the freehold flat institute which seems to point to this institute being both demanded as well as necessary. 

The fundamental characteristic of the Swedish freehold flat institute is, as is the case also in many other countries, that it is based on a model of direct ownership. The freehold flat is, unlike the tenant-ownership, a three dimensional property which is defined horizontally as well as vertically. The introduction of this institute was made within the present system governing real property law and so ordinary real property-rules are applicable if nothing else is stated. The establishment of freehold flats is mainly limited to new built flats and in order for such a flat to be formed it is legally required to be part of a unit of at least two other such flats. In order to achieve an appropriate coexistence with the other freehold flat owners, the owner of the flat must belong to an association for the administration of the commonly owned property (SW. “samfällighetsförening”). The owner of the freehold flat has an extensive legal right to dispose of his property. For example, the owner’s right to rent out or sell the flat is unlimited. The renting out of the flat is subjected to regulations found in the 12th chapter of the land code (SW. “jordabalken”). It is primarily the owner’s extensive legal right to dispose of the property in this regard that distinguishes the institute from the tenant-ownership and this originates in the difference between direct and indirect ownership. 

Some opponents of the freehold flat institute argue that the tenant-ownership is a sufficient form of ownership and that the freehold flat institute is therefore unnecessary. Opponents have also argued that the institute may lead to a more segregated and speculative real property market. The advocators of the institute argue, on the other hand, that the institute leads to an increase in the freedom of choice for property buyers and from a principle point of view also supplies a form of ownership which gives the buyer an influence which is in proportion to the risk such a commitment implies. The development of the tenant-ownership institute shows that it is often under a heavy influence from freehold flat ideas and so the introduction of a proper freehold flat institute would allow for the tenant-ownership institute to return back to its original cooperative form which could also secure the institute’s future existence. The freehold flat institute can also contribute to the development of a private renting market similar to that of other European countries which would increase the level of supply of flats to rent. 

The practical impact of the freehold flat institute is however dependant of the number of flats constructed. One year after the introduction of the institute there are fewer such flats than originally was expected. However, this may depend on the current economic state of the market and a natural hesitation to a new legal form of flat-ownership. It may however also depend on unclear regulations, for example regarding  the share of responsibility with regards to the maintenance of the house were the freehold flats are situated, and this could make the mortgage-institutes unwilling to supply appropriate finance. In the future it may also be shown necessary to allow for the transformation of tenant-ownership flats into freehold flats in order to ensure the extension of the latter. Thus, the practical implications of the freehold flat institute remain to be seen.},
  author       = {Lokrantz Bernitz, Hampus},
  keyword      = {Civilrätt (private law)},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ägarlägenheter - en ny boendeform i Sverige},
  year         = {2010},
}