Facts
The dispute opposes Bank X. and K., landlord, to spouses A. and E., tenants, regarding the validity of an increase in monthly utility bills for two renovated apartments with the help of the Confederation. The rents, assigned to Bank X., are subject to the control of the Federal Office for Housing (RRBPO). The tenants contested the increase in their charges, but the District Court of La Chaux-de-Fonds rejected the landlords' requests. The Civil Cassation Court of the canton of Neuchâtel declared the appeal of the applicants inadmissible, considering that the disputed claims fell outside the jurisdiction of the civil courts under art. 253b al. 3 CO.
The applicants appealed for reform, inviting the Federal Court to establish the jurisdiction of the civil courts and to refer the case to the cantonal instance for judgment on the merits. The appeal was declared inadmissible.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the disputed claims constituted a civil dispute within the meaning of art. 44 FJA. The case law requires that the parties exercise claims based on federal civil law and that these be objectively disputed. The Federal Court considered that the provisions relating to the challenge of abusive rents do not apply to housing for which incentive measures have been taken by the public authorities and whose rent is subject to the control of an authority.
The Federal Court also examined the question of whether accessory costs are subject to the regime provided for by private law, even for contracts subject to public authority control. The court considered that the ratio legis of art. 253b al. 3 CO is to prevent double rent control and avoid contradictory decisions. The accessory costs newly…